Search (49 results, page 1 of 3)

0.111982204 = product of:
  0.22396441 = sum of:
    0.22396441 = sum of:
      0.1538411 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1538411 = score(doc=4608,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.7541979 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070123315 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, 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=4608)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale": papers from the ALCTS preconference, June 26, 1998 "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale". ALCTS Preconference, Washington, D.C.

0.10749253 = product of:
  0.21498506 = sum of:
    0.21498506 = sum of:
      0.1588864 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1588864 = score(doc=249,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.7789323 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.

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 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 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13902561 = score(doc=114,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.68156576 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

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 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12307288 = score(doc=266,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.6033583 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07627986 = product of:
  0.15255973 = sum of:
    0.15255973 = sum of:
      0.11749808 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11749808 = score(doc=190,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.57602817 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.035061657 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035061657 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale": papers from the ALCTS preconference, June 26, 1998 "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale". ALCTS Preconference, Washington, D.C.

0.063577406 = product of:
  0.12715481 = sum of:
    0.12715481 = sum of:
      0.07105616 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07105616 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.05563023 = product of:
  0.11126046 = sum of:
    0.11126046 = sum of:
      0.06217414 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06217414 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 29(2000) no.4, S.39-59

0.046630606 = product of:
  0.09326121 = sum of:
    0.09326121 = product of:
      0.18652242 = sum of:
        0.18652242 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18652242 = score(doc=786,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.9144164 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2008) no.3, S.17-24

0.038073726 = product of:
  0.07614745 = sum of:
    0.07614745 = product of:
      0.1522949 = sum of:
        0.1522949 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1522949 = score(doc=251,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.7466178 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.

0.034756403 = product of:
  0.06951281 = sum of:
    0.06951281 = product of:
      0.13902561 = sum of:
        0.13902561 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13902561 = score(doc=795,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.68156576 = fieldWeight in 795, 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=795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Intended to contribute to the current dialogue about how the emerging information environment is impacting cataloging issues, this survey paper covers a broad range of topics, such as how search engines compare with integrated library systems, and includes some thoughts on how cataloging processes may evolve to continue to remain relevant. The author suggests that there is a need for significant changes in integrated library system interfaces and infrastructures as well as some changes in cataloging practice. The value of descriptive vs. non-descriptive elements in the catalog record and some pros and cons of the MARC format are covered.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2008) no.4, S.81-99

0.034253456 = product of:
  0.06850691 = sum of:
    0.06850691 = sum of:
      0.043963756 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043963756 = score(doc=238,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.21553001 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.024543159 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024543159 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.30, no.1

0.032634623 = product of:
  0.06526925 = sum of:
    0.06526925 = product of:
      0.1305385 = sum of:
        0.1305385 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1305385 = score(doc=5430,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.63995814 = fieldWeight in 5430, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 32(2001) no.2, S.127-151

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=2254,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 2254, 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=2254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of some of the important recent developments in cataloging theory and practice and online catalog design. Changes in cataloging theory and practice include the incorporation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records principles into catalogs, the new Resource Description and Access cataloging manual, and the new CONSER Standard Record. Web 2.0 functionalities and advances in search technology and results displays are influencing online catalog design. The paper ends with hypothetical scenarios in which a catalog, enhanced by the developments described, fulfills the tasks of finding serials articles and titles.

0.0297912 = product of:
  0.0595824 = sum of:
    0.0595824 = product of:
      0.1191648 = sum of:
        0.1191648 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1191648 = score(doc=1086,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.5841992 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos

0.0297912 = product of:
  0.0595824 = sum of:
    0.0595824 = product of:
      0.1191648 = sum of:
        0.1191648 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1191648 = score(doc=2992,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.5841992 = fieldWeight in 2992, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging procedures have evolved in many academic research libraries over the past 10 years. Some predicted trends--outsourcing, original cataloging by paraprofessionals, more digital material--have been borne out. Others, such as a decline in the amount of material to catalog or in the number of professional catalogers, have not. Changes have been mostly procedural and have not affected the catalog itself. Recently, however, the emergence of powerful Internet search engines has allowed researchers to bypass the catalog. This has led some to question the wisdom of continuing it and others to vigorously defended current practice. In 2005-2007 this debate became especially heated, but a consensus appears to be emerging that although the character of the professional cataloger's job will continue to evolve over the next 5 to 10 years there will not be a revolution. The cataloger's basic skills will still be needed and the fundamental nature of cataloging will remain much as we know it.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 47(2009) no.5, S.464-482

0.02937452 = product of:
  0.05874904 = sum of:
    0.05874904 = product of:
      0.11749808 = sum of:
        0.11749808 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11749808 = score(doc=5390,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.57602817 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

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.299-313

0.027195519 = product of:
  0.054391038 = sum of:
    0.054391038 = product of:
      0.108782075 = sum of:
        0.108782075 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108782075 = score(doc=2627,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.53329843 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.

Issue

Final report. Phase I: Descriptive cataloging.

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=2993,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 2993, 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=2993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There has been a flurry of constructive discussion and debate about the future of cataloging and the catalog, from FRBR and RDA on cataloging rules (with a focus on content) to next-generation discovery interfaces for the catalog (with a focus on carrier). A topic that is not receiving as much attention in the midst of these discussions is the scope of the library catalog. This article offers an opinion on the scope of the catalog in a research library, and the role of the catalogers in this time of transition. The article will also elicit some practical approaches that catalogers can take to reposition the catalog for improved user-access and resource discovery.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 47(2009) no.5, S.409-426

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 518, 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=518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)