Search (203 results, page 1 of 11)

0.10679182 = product of:
  0.21358363 = sum of:
    0.21358363 = sum of:
      0.16449732 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16449732 = score(doc=2609,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.80643946 = fieldWeight in 2609, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2609)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2609, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2609)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.10069061 = product of:
  0.20138122 = sum of:
    0.20138122 = sum of:
      0.1522949 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1522949 = score(doc=4309,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.7466178 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.09153584 = product of:
  0.18307167 = sum of:
    0.18307167 = sum of:
      0.1409977 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1409977 = score(doc=2603,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.6912338 = fieldWeight in 2603, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2603)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=2603,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2603, 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=2603)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This comprehensive annotated webliography describes online cataloging resources that are free to use, currently updated, and of high quality. The major aim of this webliography is to provide assistance for catalogers who are new to the profession, unfamiliar with cataloging specific formats, or unable to access costly print and subscription resources. The annotated resources include general websites and webpages, databases, workshop presentations, streaming media, and local documentation. The scope of the webliography is limited to resources reflecting traditional cataloging practices using the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, RDA: Resource Description and Access, and MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC) standards. Non-MARC metadata schemas like Dublin Core are not covered. Most components of cataloging are represented in this webliography, such as authority control, classification, subject headings, and genre terms. Guidance also is provided for cataloging miscellaneous formats including sound and videorecordings, streaming media, e-books, video games, graphic novels, kits, rare materials, maps, serials, realia, government documents, and music.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.080619395 = product of:
  0.16123879 = sum of:
    0.16123879 = sum of:
      0.1191648 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1191648 = score(doc=2608,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.5841992 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper surveys the English-language literature on cataloging and classification published during 2011 and 2012, covering both theory and application. A major theme of the literature centered on Resource Description and Access (RDA), as the period covered in this review includes the conclusion of the RDA test, revisions to RDA, and the implementation decision. Explorations in the theory and practical applications of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), upon which RDA is organized, are also heavily represented. Library involvement with linked data through the creation of prototypes and vocabularies are explored further during the period. Other areas covered in the review include: classification, controlled vocabularies and name authority, evaluation and history of cataloging, special formats cataloging, cataloging and discovery services, non-AACR2/RDA metadata, cataloging workflows, and the education and careers of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07838754 = product of:
  0.15677509 = sum of:
    0.15677509 = sum of:
      0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10768877 = score(doc=1934,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Creativity is now a core requirement for successful organizations. Libraries, like all organizations, need to produce and utilize new ideas to improve user service and experiences. With changes in cataloging such as Resource Description and Access (RDA), the opportunity to rethink cataloging practices is here now. Everyone has creative potential, although catalogers may have both a personality and work environment that make it more difficult. To be able to maximize creative capacity, catalogers need the proper work environment, support from their organization, and a plan for accomplishing creative goals. Given that environment, catalogers may create ideas that will shape the future. (RDA).

Date

29. 5.2015 11:08:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.8, S.894-902

0.07838754 = product of:
  0.15677509 = sum of:
    0.15677509 = sum of:
      0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10768877 = score(doc=2599,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 2599, 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=2599)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=2599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2599, 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=2599)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The US cataloging community is an interorganizational network with the Library of Congress (LC) as the lead organization, which reserves to itself the power to shape cataloging rules. Peripheral members of the network who are interested in modifying changes to the rules or to the network can use various strategies for organizational change that incorporate building ties to the decision-makers located at the hub of the network. The story of William E. Studwell's campaign for a subject heading code illustrates how some traditional scholarly methods of urging change-papers and presentations-are insufficient to achieve reform in an interorganizational network, absent strategies to build alliances with the decision makers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.06718932 = product of:
  0.13437864 = sum of:
    0.13437864 = sum of:
      0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09230466 = score(doc=4199,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4199, 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=4199)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Educational standards are a central focus of the current educational system in the United States, underpinning educational practice, curriculum design, teacher professional development, and high-stakes testing and assessment. Digital library users have requested that this information be accessible in association with digital learning resources to support teaching and learning as well as accountability requirements. Providing this information is complex because of the variability and number of standards documents in use at the national, state, and local level. This article describes a cataloging tool that aids catalogers in the assignment of standards metadata to digital library resources, using natural language processing techniques. The research explores whether the standards suggestor service would suggest the same standards as a human, whether relevant standards are ranked appropriately in the result set, and whether the relevance of the suggested assignments improve when, in addition to resource content, metadata is included in the query to the cataloging tool. The article also discusses how this service might streamline the cataloging workflow.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:25:32

0.06718932 = product of:
  0.13437864 = sum of:
    0.13437864 = sum of:
      0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09230466 = score(doc=2604,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 2604, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2604)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=2604,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2604, 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=2604)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Among the many issues associated with integrating e-books into library collections and services, the revision of existing workflows in cataloging units has received little attention. The experience designing new workflows for e-books at Oregon State University Libraries since 2008 is described in detail from the perspective of three different sources of e-books. These descriptions highlight where the workflows applied to each vendor's stream differ. A workflow was developed for each vendor, based on the quality and source of available bibliographic records and the staff member performing the task. Involving cataloging staff as early as possible in the process of purchasing e-books from a new vendor ensures that a suitable workflow can be designed and implemented as soon as possible. This ensures that the representation of e-books in the library catalog is not delayed, increasing the likelihood that users will readily find and use these resources that the library has purchased.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.058720212 = product of:
  0.117440425 = sum of:
    0.117440425 = sum of:
      0.07536644 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07536644 = score(doc=2610,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.36948 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2610, 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=2610)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aggregates have been a frequent topic of discussion between library science researchers. This study seeks to better understand aggregates through the analysis of a sample of bibliographic records and review of the cataloging treatment of aggregates. The study focuses on determining how common aggregates are in library collections, what types of aggregates exist, how aggregates are described in bibliographic records, and the criteria for identifying aggregates from the information in bibliographic records. A sample of bibliographic records representing textual resources was taken from OCLC's WorldCat database. More than 20 percent of the sampled records represented aggregates and more works were embodied in aggregates than were embodied in single work manifestations. A variety of issues, including cataloging practices and the varying definitions of aggregates, made it difficult to accurately identify and quantify the presence of aggregates using only the information from bibliographic records.

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 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06217414 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As we move toward implementing RDA: Resource Description and Access, I have been pondering how we might manage the transition to new cataloging rules effectively. I was a practicing cataloger when Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., was implemented and remember it as a traumatic process. The published literature that I found focused on the impact of the then-new rules on specific formats and genres, but no one seems to have addressed the process of implementation and what type of training worked well (or did not). After a bit of sleuthing, I found a pertinent presentation by Arlene G. Taylor, which she graciously agreed to repurpose as this guest editorial.

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 1899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06217414 = score(doc=1899,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1899, 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=1899)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 1899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=1899,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1899, 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=1899)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25. 5.2015 18:36:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 49(2011) no.7/8, S.582-599

0.05563023 = product of:
  0.11126046 = sum of:
    0.11126046 = sum of:
      0.06217414 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06217414 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In June 2009, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group established the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control to address recommendation 5.1.1.1 of On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which focused on developing measures for costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic control. This paper outlines results of that task force's efforts to develop and articulate metrics for evaluating the cost and value of cataloging activities specifically, and offers some next steps that the community could take to further the profession's collective understanding of the costs and values associated with bibliographic control.

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 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06217414 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 1.2016 19:08:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.1, S.39-59

0.048933513 = product of:
  0.09786703 = sum of:
    0.09786703 = sum of:
      0.06280537 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06280537 = score(doc=1903,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3079 = fieldWeight in 1903, 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=1903)
      0.035061657 = weight(_text_:22 in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035061657 = score(doc=1903,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1903, 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=1903)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Teaching cataloguing requires the instructor to make strategic decisions about how to approach the variety and complexity of the field and to provide an adequate theoretical foundation while preparing students for their entry into the world of practice. Accompanying these challenges are the tactical demands of providing this instruction in a distance education environment. Rather than focusing on ways to support learners in catalogue record production, instructors may use a problem solving and decision making approach to instruction. In this paper, a way to conceptualize a decision making approach that builds on a foundation provided by theories of information navigation is described. This approach, which is called "wayfinding", teaches by having students learn to find their way in the sets of rules that are commonly used. The method focuses on instruction about the structural features of rule sets, providing basic definitions of what each of the "places" in the rule sets contain (e.g., "formatting personal names" in Chapter 22 of AACR2R) and about ways to navigate those structures, enabling students to learn not only about common rules but also about less well known cataloguing practices ("dragons"). It provides both pragmatic and pedagogical benefits and helps develop links between cataloguing practices and their theoretical foundations.

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines special issue "Online delivery of cataloging and classification education and instruction"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.2/3, S.172-188

0.048036866 = product of:
  0.09607373 = sum of:
    0.09607373 = product of:
      0.19214746 = sum of:
        0.19214746 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19214746 = score(doc=4162,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.9419929 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The cataloging and classification community was called to highlight 2010 as "The Year of Cataloging Research," and specifically was challenged to generate research ideas, conduct research, and generally promote the development of new research in cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly has become the most influential journal of research in cataloging and classification since its inception in 1981. The idea behind the research reported here was to give the CCQ editorial board an opportunity to present its point of view about research for cataloging. A Delphi study was conducted in three stages during the 2009-2010 academic year. Members were asked to define the key terms "cataloging," "evidence," and "research," and to develop a research agenda in cataloging. The results reveal a basic core definition of cataloging perceived as a dynamic, active process at the core of information retrieval. An eight point research agenda emerges that is forward-looking and embraces change, along with top-ranked calls for new empirical evidence about catalogs, cataloging, and catalog users.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.8, S.645-651

0.047683053 = product of:
  0.095366105 = sum of:
    0.095366105 = sum of:
      0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053292118 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.046630606 = product of:
  0.09326121 = sum of:
    0.09326121 = product of:
      0.18652242 = sum of:
        0.18652242 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18652242 = score(doc=1938,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.9144164 = fieldWeight in 1938, 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=1938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Library of Congress' Cataloging in Publication (CIP) Program has been in existence for forty years. During this time, the CIP Program has moved from a model where the Library of Congress created all pre-publication metadata for publishers to a partnership where other libraries share in the creation of metadata. This article documents the evolution of the Electronic Cataloging in Publication (ECIP) Cataloging Partnership Program. The ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program can be used as a model to leverage limited resources across libraries to the benefit of library users nationwide.

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue "Cataloging collaborations and partnerships"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.1/3, S.25-54

0.043963756 = product of:
  0.08792751 = sum of:
    0.08792751 = product of:
      0.17585503 = sum of:
        0.17585503 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17585503 = score(doc=5126,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.86212003 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Rare materials catalogers have always been engaged in the development of rules for descriptive cataloging. In addition to the contributions made toward rules for mainstream cataloging, the rare materials community has developed a series of manuals called Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials. The fundamental principles underlying these manuals are shared with the international community and its efforts to create a common rare materials cataloging code. With the adoption of Resource Description and Access as an international standard for descriptive cataloging, the time has to come to reevaluate the potential to work toward developing common rare materials cataloging rules.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenherft: 'The present and future state of rare materials cataloging: an international perspective'.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.5/6, S.282-291

0.043512832 = product of:
  0.087025665 = sum of:
    0.087025665 = product of:
      0.17405133 = sum of:
        0.17405133 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17405133 = score(doc=2014,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.8532775 = fieldWeight in 2014, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2014)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging practices for video games have been in flux since the late 1970s, often lagging behind technological developments. This article describes the history of descriptive cataloging practices and MARC coding for video games. Also discussed are the special problems presented by Library of Congress subject heading and uniform title practice, which were developed for book cataloging rather than for the cataloging of video games themselves.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.2, S.135-156

0.04112433 = product of:
  0.08224866 = sum of:
    0.08224866 = product of:
      0.16449732 = sum of:
        0.16449732 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16449732 = score(doc=5137,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.80643946 = fieldWeight in 5137, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5137)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The importance of cataloging research was highlighted by a resolution declaring 2010 as "The Year of Cataloging Research." This study of the peer-reviewed journal literature from 2010 to 2014 examined the state of cataloging literature since this proclamation. The goals were to determine the percentage of cataloging literature that can be classified as research, what research methods were used, and whether the articles contributed to the library assessment conversation. Nearly a quarter of the cataloging literature qualifies as research; however, a majority of researchers fail to make explicit connections between their work and the missions of their libraries.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.8, S.593-611