Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

0.05191693 = product of:
  0.11681309 = sum of:
    0.037116878 = product of:
      0.074233755 = sum of:
        0.074233755 = weight(_text_:headings in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074233755 = score(doc=5678,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.46405816 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.020418115 = weight(_text_:of in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020418115 = score(doc=5678,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.041462988 = weight(_text_:congress in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041462988 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.

0.050986957 = product of:
  0.15296087 = sum of:
    0.04275627 = weight(_text_:library in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04275627 = score(doc=4238,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.4930085 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
    0.0106934365 = weight(_text_:of in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0106934365 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
    0.09951117 = weight(_text_:congress in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09951117 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.63245976 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Imprint

Lanham, MD : Scarecrow Press /Music Library Association

0.046548273 = product of:
  0.104733616 = sum of:
    0.025715325 = product of:
      0.05143065 = sum of:
        0.05143065 = weight(_text_:headings in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05143065 = score(doc=490,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.015116624 = weight(_text_:library in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015116624 = score(doc=490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
    0.014146087 = weight(_text_:of in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014146087 = score(doc=490,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
    0.049755584 = weight(_text_:congress in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049755584 = score(doc=490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Abstract

This paper takes for granted that archival materials will be entered into a catalog in which Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) will be used to provide access. The purposes of subject access are discussed. The matter of selecting the appropriate extent of subject cataloging for archival entities is raised. Archival entities will generally require more detailed subject cataloging than published materials. A scheme for subject analysis of archival materials is presented. LCSH is described briefly, and several archival entities are analyzed and provided with LCSH access points to illustrate the methodology employed. The chief advantages of using LCSH for archival materials are its availability, and its ability to cause archival materials to collocate topically with published materials in integrated online systems.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Describing Archival Materials: The Use of the MARC AMC Format

0.040504042 = product of:
  0.09113409 = sum of:
    0.021429438 = product of:
      0.042858876 = sum of:
        0.042858876 = weight(_text_:headings in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042858876 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 5631, 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=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
    0.014089839 = weight(_text_:of in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014089839 = score(doc=5631,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
    0.03779971 = product of:
      0.07559942 = sum of:
        0.07559942 = weight(_text_:etc in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07559942 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.4231634 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part II

0.040504042 = product of:
  0.09113409 = sum of:
    0.021429438 = product of:
      0.042858876 = sum of:
        0.042858876 = weight(_text_:headings in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042858876 = score(doc=5652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 5652, 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=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
    0.014089839 = weight(_text_:of in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014089839 = score(doc=5652,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
    0.03779971 = product of:
      0.07559942 = sum of:
        0.07559942 = weight(_text_:etc in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07559942 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.4231634 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Source

Historical aspects of cataloging and classification. Ed.: M.D. Joachim

0.04018744 = product of:
  0.07233739 = sum of:
    0.015152901 = product of:
      0.030305803 = sum of:
        0.030305803 = weight(_text_:headings in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030305803 = score(doc=409,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.18945095 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014084083 = weight(_text_:library in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014084083 = score(doc=409,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.16239893 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.014608656 = weight(_text_:of in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014608656 = score(doc=409,freq=86.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.28323612 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          9.273619 = tf(freq=86.0), with freq of:
            86.0 = termFreq=86.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.020731494 = weight(_text_:congress in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020731494 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.13176246 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.0077602603 = product of:
      0.0155205205 = sum of:
        0.0155205205 = weight(_text_:problems in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0155205205 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.114006475 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5555556 = coord(5/9)

Content

"Actions have consequences, and this is certainly true of knowledge organization. One reason our colleague Birger Hjoerland (1998) urges epistemological analysis for the problems of information science is that resources might well serve many different purposes for different users, and thus different user groups might have different epistemological relationships with resources. There is a difference between consulting a dictionary for a definition, reading a text for comprehension to increase your knowledge base, reading for pleasure (which, evidently boosts certain endorphins), and synthesizing a scientific report to generate an hypothesis, just to generate a few scenarios. The only commonality in that list is the consultation of a resource. In each case the purpose dictates the activity and is reliant upon a different epistemological aim. No online source of facts is going to suffice if I want something to read that will give me pleasure; no catalog of fine literature is sufficient for the extraction of scientific theory. Hjoerland also suggests that the names we give - to documents, to categories, even to activities - embodies the action of naming, and thereby also the action of facilitating or obfuscating the use of named resources (Hjoerland 2003, 98). Terminology cannot be neutral because the very selection of terms as names either provides a pathway to understanding or a barrier to usage, depending on the epistemological perspective of the user group. I won't go looking for Miss Marple in your dictionary if you call it a dictionary, even though it might contain a perfectly fine list of motives for murder. Likewise, as an information scientist I am not likely to look for research anywhere except in a database that purports to contain peer-reviewed scientific literature. Names have power, and the action of naming is powerful too. We in knowledge organization need to be aware that no matter how elegant our science, the actions based on our research have consequences. A model generated empirically might make an excellent explanation of a specific reality, but if it migrates into the structure of a system for knowledge organization it has the power to help or hinder assignment to categories, not to mention retrieval from those categories.
An important aspect of what we do is facilitating the curatorial aspect of information retrieval or librarianship. What I mean is that our job is not merely to "mark and park," as generations of catalogers famously have said of both resource description and classification, or even to generate parking spaces (to press my metaphor), but rather our job is to place each entity in the best category, each artifact in the best environment, each resource on the best "shelf" to enhance its usability should it actually be sought for retrieval. Hope Olson (2002) has also written about the limits we create when we exercise the power to name. We must be aware of the consequences of our science. In librarianship in the United States at the moment there is a fair amount of hand-wringing about the future, and this anxiety has been fed by the report of Karen Calhoun on the changing nature of the catalog. Calhoun (2006) suggests that the library community should abandon many of its expensive knowledge organization practices - such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings - in favor of integration of search engines into library catalogs. As logical as this seems on the face of it (and as much as we might often have wished LCSH would go away!), purveyors of such notions have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the library as a social instrument, and therefore the order of things in libraries as an extension of that social role. We must also view knowledge organization then as a cultural enterprise, a social act that has consequences. The ontologies we use to devise categorical schemes imply certain realities. If we say there is no music other than Western Art, why, then there must be no point in paying any attention to music of any other sort, right? And if we say that UFOs are a kind of controversial knowledge, we join the community of non-believers who insist that UFOs do not exist. Surely if we thought they were viable phenomena we would create a concrete class for them (see DDC 001.942). Voila, now we know, UFOs do not exist - the DDC says so. And if a gay adolescent searches for literature to help understand and finds that it all falls under "perversion" then we have oppressed yet another youth (see Campbell 2001). Our actions have social consequences.
Librarianship incorporates the tools of knowledge organization as part of its role as cultural disseminator. Subject headings and classification were both intended by their 19`h century promulgators - perhaps most notably Dewey and Cutter - to facilitate learning by grouping materials of high quality together. We might call this enhanced serendipity if we think it happens by accident or act of fate, or we might call it curatorship if we realize the responsibility inherent in our social role. The cataloger's job always has been to place each work sensitively among other works related to it, and to make the relationships explicit to facilitate and even encourage selection (see Miksa 1983). Schallier (2004) reported on the use of classification in an online catalog to enhance just such a curatorial purpose. UDC classification codes were exploded into linguistic strings to allow users to search, not just for a given term, but for the terms that occur around it - that is, terms that are adjacent in the classification. These displays are used alongside LCSH to provide enhanced-serendipity for users. What caught my attention was the intention of the project (p. 271): UDC permits librarians to build virtual library shelves, where a document's subjects can be described in thematic categories rather than in detailed verbal terms. And: It is our experience that most end users are not familiar with large controlled vocabularies. UDC could be an answer to this, since its alphanumeric makeup could be used to build a tree structure of terms, which would guide end users in their searchers. There are other implications from this project, including background linkage from UDC codes that drive the "virtual shelves" to subject terms that drive the initial classification. Knowledge organization has consequences in both theory and application."

0.023357088 = product of:
  0.1051069 = sum of:
    0.014146087 = weight(_text_:of in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014146087 = score(doc=1415,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
    0.09096081 = sum of:
      0.06414823 = weight(_text_:etc in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06414823 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03298316 = queryNorm
          0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
      0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026812578 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03298316 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Domain analysis reveals the contours of knowledge in diverse discourse communities. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) conferences represent the cutting edge of research in metadata for the digital age. Beak and Smiraglia (2013) discovered a shared epistemology revealed by co-citation perceptions of the domain, a common ontological base, social semantics, and a limited but focused intent. User groups did not emerge from that analysis, raising an interesting question about the content of core thematic extension versus a highly granular intension. We analyzed keywords from the titles by year to identify core and granular topics as they arose over time. The results showed that only 36 core keywords, e.g. "Dublin Core," "Metadata," "Linked Data," "Applications," etc. represents the domain's extension. However, there was much rich terminology among the granularity, e.g., "development," "description," "interoperability," "analysis," "applications," and "classification" and even "domain" pointed to the domain's intension.

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

0.020017786 = product of:
  0.060053356 = sum of:
    0.01763606 = weight(_text_:library in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01763606 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.020688567 = weight(_text_:of in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020688567 = score(doc=343,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.02172873 = product of:
      0.04345746 = sum of:
        0.04345746 = weight(_text_:problems in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04345746 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.

0.017673038 = product of:
  0.053019114 = sum of:
    0.015116624 = weight(_text_:library in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015116624 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
    0.019277865 = weight(_text_:of in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019277865 = score(doc=1761,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
    0.018624624 = product of:
      0.03724925 = sum of:
        0.03724925 = weight(_text_:problems in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03724925 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

For a long time music librarians have grappled with the problem of cataloguing music scores along with physical recordings, including videorecordings of musical performances, in such a way as to collocate als physical forms in an intelligible order. The critical problems are, how to identify the properties of musical bibliographic entities and then how to control each property in the bibliographic universe and in each of the subsets of that universe, such as the library OPAC. Examines the concept of the 'musical work' as it has been decribed by bibliographers, cataloguers and scholars of bibliographic control. Concludes that there is ample evidence that equality exists among the representations of a musical work regardless of their physical formats. An understanding of the concept of the musical work should obviate the need to reconsider forms of access under current cataloguing practice and lead the way to the next generation of bibliographic control for musical works

0.01648709 = product of:
  0.049461268 = sum of:
    0.021429438 = product of:
      0.042858876 = sum of:
        0.042858876 = weight(_text_:headings in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042858876 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 2099, 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=2099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125971865 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
    0.015434646 = weight(_text_:of in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015434646 = score(doc=2099,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

In KO volume 40 number 3 (2013) I included an editorial about keywords-both about the absence prior to that date of designated keywords in articles in Knowledge Organization, and about the misuse of the idea by some other journal publications (Smiraglia 2013). At the time I was chagrined to discover how little correlation there was across the formal indexing of a small set of papers from our journal, and especially to see how little correspondence there was between actual keywords appearing in the published texts, and any of the indexing supplied by either Web of Science or LISTA (Thomson Reuters' Web of ScienceT (WoS) and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA). The idea of a keyword arose in the early days of automated indexing, when it was discovered that using terms that actually occurred in full texts (or, in the earliest days, in titles and abstracts) as search "keys," usually in Boolean combinations, provided fairly precise recall in small, contextually confined text corpora. A recent Wikipedia entry (Keywords 2015) embues keywords with properties of structural reasoning, but notes that they are "key" among the most frequently occurring terms in a text corpus. The jury is still out on whether keyword retrieval is better than indexing with subject headings, but in general, keyword searches in large, unstructured text corpora (which is what we have today) are imprecise and result in large recall sets with many irrelevant hits (see the recent analysis by Gross, Taylor and Joudrey (2014). Thus it seems inadvisable to me, as editor, especially of a journal on knowledge organization, to facilitate imprecise indexing of our journal's content.

0.015017303 = product of:
  0.045051906 = sum of:
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=107,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
    0.016064888 = weight(_text_:of in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016064888 = score(doc=107,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
    0.011171908 = product of:
      0.022343816 = sum of:
        0.022343816 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022343816 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Forty-five years have passed since Lubetzky outlined the primary objectives of the catalog, which should facilitate the identification of specific bibliographic entities, and the explicit recoguition of works and relationships amongthem. Still, our catalogs are better designed to identify specific bibliographic entities than they are to guide users among the network of potential related editions and translations of works. In this paper, we seck to examine qualitatively some interesting examples of families of related works, defined as bibliographic families. Although the cases described here were derived from a random sample, this is a qualitative analysis. We selected these bibliographic families for their ability to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of Leazer's model, which incorporates relationship taxonomies by Tillett and Smiraglia Qualitatice analysis is intended to produce on explanation of a phenomenou, particularly an identification of any palterns observed. Patterns observed in qualitative analysis can be used to affirm external observations of the same phenomena; conclusions can contribute to what is knoton as grounded theory-a unique explanation grounded in the phenomenon under study. We arrive at two statements of grounded theory concerning bibliographic families: cataloger-generated implicit maps among works are inadequate, and qualitative analysis suggests the complexity of even the smallest bibliographic families. We conclude that user behavior study is needed to suggest which alternative maps are preferable.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 43(1999) no.4, S.191-212

0.011517493 = product of:
  0.034552477 = sum of:
    0.010077749 = weight(_text_:library in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010077749 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.015537202 = weight(_text_:of in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015537202 = score(doc=770,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.30123898 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.0089375265 = product of:
      0.017875053 = sum of:
        0.017875053 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017875053 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the research reported here is to improve comprehension of the socially-negotiated identity of concepts in the domain of knowledge organization. Because knowledge organization as a domain has as its focus the order of concepts, both from a theoretical perspective and from an applied perspective, it is important to understand how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides an empirical demonstration of how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. The paper employs content analysis to demonstrate the ways in which concepts are portrayed in KO concept maps as signs, and they are subjected to evaluative semiotic analysis as a way to understand their meaning. The frame was the entire population of formal proceedings in knowledge organization - all proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization's international conferences (1990-2010) and those of the annual classification workshops of the Special Interest Group for Classification Research of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (SIG/CR). Findings - A total of 344 concept maps were analyzed. There was no discernible chronological pattern. Most concept maps were created by authors who were professors from the USA, Germany, France, or Canada. Roughly half were judged to contain semiotic content. Peirceian semiotics predominated, and tended to convey greater granularity and complexity in conceptual terminology. Nodes could be identified as anchors of conceptual clusters in the domain; the arcs were identifiable as verbal relationship indicators. Saussurian concept maps were more applied than theoretical; Peirceian concept maps had more theoretical content. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates important empirical evidence about the coherence of the domain of knowledge organization. Core values are conveyed across time through the concept maps in this population of conference papers.

Content

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.

Source

Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.1, S.27-48

0.010884871 = product of:
  0.04898192 = sum of:
    0.016907806 = weight(_text_:of in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016907806 = score(doc=1119,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.032074116 = product of:
      0.06414823 = sum of:
        0.06414823 = weight(_text_:etc in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06414823 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

0.010349835 = product of:
  0.046574257 = sum of:
    0.016334493 = weight(_text_:of in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016334493 = score(doc=2671,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.31669703 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
    0.030239766 = product of:
      0.060479533 = sum of:
        0.060479533 = weight(_text_:etc in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060479533 = score(doc=2671,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.33853072 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The harmonization and extension of a taxonomy of works from the documentary to the artefactual domain represents an attempt to further knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries. The uses and users of works, both documentary and artefactual, are global-the need for this advance in the organization of knowledge is therefore also global. Works are the formal records of knowledge, the essential records of human accomplishment. Works are a global phenomenon despite potential cultural variations in their creation and instantiation, and the need to organize works for retrieval is likewise a global phenomenon. Artefacts (sculptures, paintings, realia, documents, books, scores, recordings, etc.) are the physical media collected by repositories of culture (libraries, archives, museums, etc.), and are the means by which works are communicated. Works mutate and derive across time and culture in response to their entrance into a canon of cultural meaning. In the present paper, we review the characteristics of documentary works. Then we extend the metaphor from the documentary environment to the artefactual environment. To carry the metaphor from the documentary domain to the artefactual domain we alter the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. an epistemological architecture of content-genealogy is presented, demonstrating the potential for mutation and derivation of the representations of artefacts. Case studies of Etruscan artefacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in nondocumentary artefacts. An outline of a meta-theory of "works" is presented that harmonizes the documentary and artefactual domains.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.010026759 = product of:
  0.045120414 = sum of:
    0.025194373 = weight(_text_:library in 6676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025194373 = score(doc=6676,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 6676, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6676)
    0.019926041 = weight(_text_:of in 6676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019926041 = score(doc=6676,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 6676, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6676)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Derivative bibliographic relationships are the primary relationships that exist among the members of a bibliographic family--the set of interrelated works where the relationships among entities express shared semantic or linguistic activity. Derivative bibliographic relationships exist between any new conception of a work and its original source (the progenitor), or its successor, or both. Discipline was a poor predictor of derivative relationships in prior studies of derivative bibliographic relationships. For the present study random samples of works were drawn from the catalogs of the Bobst Library, New York University, and the Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary, New York. Two sites were chosen to allow a test of the differences in collection development patterns between a university research library and a theological library. Bibliographic families were compiled for each work. Results indicate: 1) derivative bibliographic relationships exist for somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of theological works in this study; 2) there is little difference in proportions of derivative bibliographic relationships or in the size of bibliographic families between the two collections; 3) there is a positive correlation between the age of the progenitor work and the size of the bibliographic family); 4) there are significant gaps in coverage of theological bibliographic families online; 5) there is some evidence of differing patterns of derivation between Judaic and Islamic literature and Christian literature; 5) forms and genres are useful in a limited way for predicting the incidence of derivative relationships in theological literature

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.009575682 = product of:
  0.043090567 = sum of:
    0.026182763 = weight(_text_:library in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026182763 = score(doc=5575,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
    0.016907806 = weight(_text_:of in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016907806 = score(doc=5575,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The fundamental principle of order in the library catalogue is the authorship principle, which serves as the organizing node of an alphabetico-classed system, in which "texts" of "works" are organized first alphabetically by uniform title of the progenitor work and then are subarranged using titles for variant instantiations, under the heading for an "author." We analyze case studies of entries from (1) the first documented imperial library catalogue, the Seven Epitomes (Qilue [??]), in China; (2) Abelard's Works, which featured prominently in the 1848 testimony of Antonio Panizzi; and (3) The French Chef and the large family of instantiated works associated with it. Our analysis shows that the catalogue typically contains many large superwork sets. A more pragmatic approach to the design of catalogues is to array descriptions of resources in relation to the superwork sets to which they might belong. In all cases, a multidimensional faceted arrangement incorporating ideational nodes from the universe of recorded knowledge holds promise for greatly enhanced retrieval capability.

Source

Library trends. 61(2012) no.1, S.35-48

0.009209983 = product of:
  0.041444924 = sum of:
    0.024941156 = weight(_text_:library in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024941156 = score(doc=5627,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
    0.016503768 = weight(_text_:of in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016503768 = score(doc=5627,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Random samples of works were drawn from the catalogs of the Bobst Library, New York University, and the Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary, New York. Results indicated: 1) derivative bibliographic relationships existed for somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of theological works; 2) there was a positive correlation between the age of the progenitor work and the extent of derivation; and, 3) forms and genres were useful in a limited way for predicting the incidence of derivative relationships in theological literature. Qualitative analysis reveals the important aspects of the genres "revelation" and "scripture" among theological works.

0.008553398 = product of:
  0.03849029 = sum of:
    0.02181897 = weight(_text_:library in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02181897 = score(doc=811,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
    0.016671322 = weight(_text_:of in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016671322 = score(doc=811,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

We understand "theory" to be a system of testable explanatory statements derived from research. In knowledge organization, the generation of theory has moved from an epistemic stance of pragmatism (based on observation of the construction of retrieval tools), to empiricism (based on the results of empirical research). In the nineteenth century, Panizzi (1841), Cutter (1876), and Dewey (1876), developed very pragmatic tools (i.e., catalogs and classifications), explaining as they did so the principles by which their tools were constructed. By 1950, key papers at a University of Chicago Graduate Library School conference on "Bibliographic Organization" recorded the role of bibliographic organization in civilization (Clapp, 1950) and deemed classification the basis of bibliographic organization (Shera, 1950). In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris brought together key thinkers on the design of catalogs. Wilson (1968) expounded a system for bibliographic apparatus, and provided the framework for empirical theoretical development. In 2000, Svenonius asserted that knowledge organization is accomplished through a bibliographic language (or, more properly through a complex set of bibliographic languages), with semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and rules to govern their implementation. Logical positivism notwithstanding, rationalist and historicist stances have begun to come to the fore of late through the promulgation of qualitative methods, most notably those employed in classification, user-interface design, and bibliometric research.

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft "Current theory in library and information science"

Source

Library trends. 50(2002) no.3, S.330-349

0.008550529 = product of:
  0.038477384 = sum of:
    0.017094638 = weight(_text_:of in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017094638 = score(doc=2772,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.33143494 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
    0.021382743 = product of:
      0.042765487 = sum of:
        0.042765487 = weight(_text_:etc in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042765487 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.23937736 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that stand as the formal records of knowledge. Core bodies of works-canons-function to preserve and disseminate the parameters of a culture. There is some evidence that popularity of works is a contributing factor to the phenomena of mutation and derivation. In particular, novels demonstrated the high incidence of both derivation and mutation of a popular literary work. Commercial interests combine with cultural forces to propel the evolution of popular novels as interest in them spreads across language and geographic boundaries. Earlier studies support a concept of the work as a collaborative entity that is changed over time by those who embrace it. The more popular the work, the more likely we will observe change over time. Cultural boundaries are crossed by the mutation of best-selling works, as their translations find collaborative roles in cultures different from that in which the work originated. The study of works that have appeared an best-seller lists (one measure of cultural embrace, or "popularity") might yield useful data for comprehension of the content and extent of the canon of popular works. In the present study, a sample of best-selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 is examined. Preliminary evidence from the first phase of this study demonstrates the consistency of the theoretical functioning of works as cultural entities. That is, works that enter a canon derive and mutate dramatically, while those that do not remain unchanged. "Popularity" is not demonstrated as equated with "bestselling," but all best-selling books in the sample generated more than one edition.

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.008077683 = product of:
  0.036349572 = sum of:
    0.01763606 = weight(_text_:library in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01763606 = score(doc=1907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
    0.018713512 = weight(_text_:of in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018713512 = score(doc=1907,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The library catalog as a catalog of works was an infectious idea, which together with research led to reconceptualization in the form of the FRBR conceptual model. Two categories of lacunae emerge-the expression entity, and gaps in the model such as aggregates and dynamic documents. Evidence needed to extend the FRBR model is available in contemporary research on instantiation. The challenge for the bibliographic community is to begin to think of FRBR as a form of knowledge organization system, adding a final dimension to classification. The papers in the present volume offer a compendium of the promise of the FRBR model.

Content

Introduction to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"