Search (966 results, page 2 of 49)

0.05563023 = product of:
  0.11126046 = sum of:
    0.11126046 = sum of:
      0.06217414 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06217414 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5178, 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=5178)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5178, 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=5178)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19. 3.2019 12:17:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.4, S.354-373

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

0.048933513 = product of:
  0.09786703 = sum of:
    0.09786703 = sum of:
      0.06280537 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06280537 = score(doc=2200,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3079 = fieldWeight in 2200, 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=2200)
      0.035061657 = weight(_text_:22 in 2200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035061657 = score(doc=2200,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2200, 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=2200)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Providing subject access to cartographic resources is in many ways as fraught as providing access to any other human artifact, since places, spaces, and features on the land are conceptualized and named by people. Using critical cartographic cataloging, an approach comparable to critical cartography, we explore the potential of using multiple place-names in information systems to allow for multidimensional retrieval. Placenames are a social construct identifying and referencing locations. Cartographers and other geographic information professionals map these locations by encoding them into cartographic artifacts. In some instances the place-name metadata are created by knowledge workers; increasingly, they also can be created by non-expert end users on the Geoweb. Because queries begin with a place-name, personal lexicons of end-users have the potential to be used increasingly, both inside and out of traditional repository settings. We explore place-name biases and make recommendations to inform system design within the field of knowledge organization that accounts for the multitude of world-views in the emergent Geoweb.

Content

This article is based in part on: Moulaison, Heather Lee and Wade Bishop. 2014. "Organizing and Representing Geographic Information." In Wies³aw Babik, ed. 2014. Knowledge Organization in the 21st Century: Between Historical Patterns and Future Prospects: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference, 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Advances in Knowledge Organization 14. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, pp. 437-44.

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

Abstract

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

0.048036866 = 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

0.047952052 = product of:
  0.095904104 = sum of:
    0.095904104 = product of:
      0.2877123 = sum of:
        0.2877123 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2877123 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4387947 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

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

0.047683053 = product of:
  0.095366105 = sum of:
    0.095366105 = sum of:
      0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053292118 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 1464, 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=1464)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1464, 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=1464)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper attempts to explore an approach of using an automatic semantic analysis tool to enhance the "subject" access to materials that are not included in the usual library subject cataloging process. Using two research samples the authors analyzed the access points supplied by OpenCalais, a semantic analysis tool. As an aid in understanding how computerized subject analysis might be approached, this paper suggests using the three-layer framework that has been accepted and applied in image analysis, developed by Erwin Panofsky.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.047683053 = product of:
  0.095366105 = sum of:
    0.095366105 = sum of:
      0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053292118 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Enhancing content description of specialized resources, particularly astronomical resources, is a matter that is still unresolved in library and information science. In this paper, the authors outline deficiencies in some fields and elements of cataloging standards for description of historical astronomical resources, mainly star atlases and catalogs. Furthermore, they review their recent proposal of astronomical parameters for a better description and propose an approach for accommodating these parameters in the current criteria of MARC 21, the International Standard Bibliographic Description, and Resource Description and Access. Fourteen new parameters are considered, and recommendations are provided to standards developers for the addition of elements to accommodate attributes of celestial cartographic resources. This would improve bibliographic records for such resources in astronomical libraries' OPACs, which will have a beneficial effect on information retrieval.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.047683053 = product of:
  0.095366105 = sum of:
    0.095366105 = sum of:
      0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053292118 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2019 19:22:49

Source

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

0.046997383 = product of:
  0.09399477 = sum of:
    0.09399477 = sum of:
      0.0444101 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0444101 = score(doc=1962,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.049584668 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049584668 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The article discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and/or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.90-101

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

0.043963756 = product of:
  0.08792751 = sum of:
    0.08792751 = product of:
      0.17585503 = sum of:
        0.17585503 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17585503 = score(doc=5155,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.86212003 = fieldWeight in 5155, 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=5155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Definitions of "quality cataloging" may differ from cataloger to cataloger and from institution to institution. If an objective definition of quality is elusive, how can an institution assess the quality of cataloging work? This article discusses definitions of quality cataloging in the literature and different ways it has been evaluated and measured. Academic library catalogers' perceptions of quality cataloging will also be explored, as well as how these perceptions are formed. The article concludes by suggesting ways cataloging departments can approach the creation and evaluation of quality cataloging in an ethical manner.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.7/8, S.438-455

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

0.04112433 = product of:
  0.08224866 = sum of:
    0.08224866 = product of:
      0.16449732 = sum of:
        0.16449732 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16449732 = score(doc=5147,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.80643946 = fieldWeight in 5147, 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=5147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2014, the Ohio Library and Information Network (OhioLINK) overhauled its consortial cataloging workflows by switching to what has been termed a model of "cataloging from the center." For more than 20 years, the Ohio academic library consortium relied on volunteers from its member institutions to catalog consortially purchased materials. Consolidating the consortial cataloging into the OhioLINK office allowed for revising the various workflows. Since 2014, the cataloging workflows for these shared electronic resources have improved efficiencies, allowing records to be provided to members in a more timely manner.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.7/8, S.630-643

0.041101757 = product of:
  0.082203515 = sum of:
    0.082203515 = product of:
      0.24661054 = sum of:
        0.24661054 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24661054 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4387947 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.041101757 = product of:
  0.082203515 = sum of:
    0.082203515 = product of:
      0.24661054 = sum of:
        0.24661054 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24661054 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4387947 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.04003072 = product of:
  0.08006144 = sum of:
    0.08006144 = product of:
      0.16012289 = sum of:
        0.16012289 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16012289 = score(doc=2379,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.78499407 = fieldWeight in 2379, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This invaluable cataloging resource gives pre-service and practicing school library media specialists the tools they need to be intelligent consumers of commercial cataloging and competent organizers of new materials in their collections. The second edition contains expanded information on Library of Congress Subject Headings and electronic cataloging and cataloging systems, as well as Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC). Whether you're a practicing cataloger looking for a short text to update you on the application of RDA to cataloging records or a school librarian who needs a quick resource to answer cataloging questions, this guide is for you. - Thoroughly updates a best-selling, essential guide to cataloging - Addresses the new standards specifically as they apply to school libraries - Helps school librarians understand and implement the new cataloging standards in their collections - Distills the latest information and presents it in a format that is clear and accessible - Fills the need for up-to-the-minute cataloging guidance for the busy librarian who wants information in a hurry

LCSH

Cataloging / Handbooks, manuals, etc

Subject

Cataloging / Handbooks, manuals, etc