-
Sauperl, A.: Four views of a novel : characteristics of novels as described by publishers, librarians, literary theorists, and readers (2013)
0.02
0.023290861 = product of:
0.046581723 = sum of:
0.046581723 = product of:
0.093163446 = sum of:
0.093163446 = weight(_text_:headings in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.093163446 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Publishers present novels with summaries, librarians provide subject headings, classification numbers and annotations, literary theorists write reviews. Readers share opinions and tags in social networks. These groups share interest in the same novel and possibly in the same library catalogs. I analyze the descriptions of novels written by these four groups to propose the enhancement of library catalogs. Results show that the story, information about the author, genre, personal experience with reading the novel, and an evaluation (awards, personal evaluation) are consistently presented by all four groups and should become standard elements for the subject description of fiction.
-
Sauperl, A.; Rozman, D.: Subject cataloguing at the crossroads : with or without subject heading strings? (2007)
0.02
0.017346188 = product of:
0.034692377 = sum of:
0.034692377 = product of:
0.06938475 = sum of:
0.06938475 = weight(_text_:22 in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06938475 = score(doc=245,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 245, 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=245)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Knjiznice za prihodnost : napredek in sodelovanje : zbornik referatov [ Libraries for the future : development and collaboration: proceedings / Professional conference of Union of associations of Slovene Librarians], Portoroz, October 22-23, 2007; ed. M. Ambrozic
-
Sauperl, A.: Catalogers' common ground and shared knowledge (2004)
0.02
0.01663633 = product of:
0.03327266 = sum of:
0.03327266 = product of:
0.06654532 = sum of:
0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06654532 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.
-
Sauperl, A.: Subject cataloging process of Slovenian and American catalogers (2005)
0.02
0.01663633 = product of:
0.03327266 = sum of:
0.03327266 = product of:
0.06654532 = sum of:
0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06654532 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.
-
Sauperl, A.; Saye, J.D.: Pebbles for the mosais of cataloging expertise : what do problems in expert systems for cataloging reveal about cataloging expertise? (1999)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 103, 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=103)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Sauperl, A.: Precoordination or not? : a new view of the old question (2009)
0.01
0.008673094 = product of:
0.017346188 = sum of:
0.017346188 = product of:
0.034692377 = sum of:
0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034692377 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3611, 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=3611)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 6.2010 14:22:43
