Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × author_ss:"Beall, J."
  1. Beall, J.: Abbreviations, full spellings, and searchers' preferences (2011) 0.03 
    0.025122147 = product of:
  0.050244294 = sum of:
    0.050244294 = product of:
      0.10048859 = sum of:
        0.10048859 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10048859 = score(doc=4166,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 4166, 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=4166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examined ten, selected word pairs, each containing a word's full spelling and its abbreviation, to determine which form search engine users preferred in searching. Using seven search logs gathered from several Internet search engines with approximately 608 MB of data, the study measured the occurrences of the twenty terms. The selected words are important in library cataloging, for some are prescribed abbreviations in metadata content standards. The study found that in eight of the ten word pairs users preferred to search full spellings over the abbreviations, often by a high margin.'
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 49(2011) no.6, S.443-456
  2. Beall, J.; Mitchell, J.S.: History of the representation of the DDC in the MARC Classification Format (2010) 0.02 
    0.015701342 = product of:
  0.031402685 = sum of:
    0.031402685 = product of:
      0.06280537 = sum of:
        0.06280537 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06280537 = score(doc=3568,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.3079 = fieldWeight in 3568, 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=3568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article explores the history of the representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) in the Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) formats, with a special emphasis on the development of the MARC classification format. Until 2009, the format used to represent the DDC has been a proprietary one that predated the development of the MARC classification format. The need to replace the current editorial support system, the desire to deliver DDC data in a variety of formats to support different uses, and the increasingly global context of editorial work with translation partners around the world prompted the Dewey editorial team, along with OCLC research and development colleagues, to rethink the underlying representation of the DDC and choose the MARC 21 formats for classification and authority data. The discussion is framed with quotes from the writings of Nancy J. Williamson, whose analysis of the content of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) schedules played a key role in shaping the original MARC classification format.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.1, S.48-63

Themes