Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06600723 = product of:
  0.13201445 = sum of:
    0.08294755 = weight(_text_:headings in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08294755 = score(doc=1903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 1903, 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=1903)
    0.049066905 = product of:
      0.09813381 = sum of:
        0.09813381 = weight(_text_:terminology in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09813381 = score(doc=1903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.40798795 = fieldWeight in 1903, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In the ten years since the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, long-standing debates have continued as to whether or not to have a "main entry", and whether or not to exercise the rule of three to limit the number of headings or access points in certain cases. Recent proposals from the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA have recommended a change in "main entry" terminology to "primary access point," and the elimination of the rule of three. This paper explores how and why these shifts have occurred.

0.029326389 = product of:
  0.117305554 = sum of:
    0.117305554 = weight(_text_:headings in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.117305554 = score(doc=2723,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.5304626 = fieldWeight in 2723, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2723)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Even before John Fiske (1878) reminded catalogers of their "duty" to correctly identify authors with the same name, uniform headings had assumed a place and purpose in nineteenth-century catalogs. Rules for names of persons, families, corporate bodies, and places have been developed to ensure consistency of both structure and application. Catalogers agree on the importance of form when creating either uniform headings or uniform titles. Paths diverge at the point of application. Effective collocation by means of uniform titles is entirely dependent on whether or not the option to establish them is exercised. In this article, we explore how the concept and treatment of "uniform title" has evolved within Anglo-American cataloging codes, and is changing within RDA: Resource Description and Access.

0.010514337 = product of:
  0.042057347 = sum of:
    0.042057347 = product of:
      0.08411469 = sum of:
        0.08411469 = weight(_text_:terminology in 2626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08411469 = score(doc=2626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.34970397 = fieldWeight in 2626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Even as the number of Web-enabled resources and knowledge repositories continues its unabated climb, both general purpose and domain-specific metadata schemas are in vigorous development. While this might be viewed as a promising direction for more precise access to disparate metadata-enabled resources, semantically-oriented tools to facilitate cross-domain searching by end-users unfamiliar with structured approaches to language or particular metadata schema conventions have received little attention. This paper describes findings from a focus group assessment of a natural language "gateway" previously derived from mapping, then categorizing terminology from nine metadata schemas. Semantic ambiguities identified in relation to three core metadata elements, namely, "Names", "Title", and "Subject", are discussed relative to data collection techniques employed in the research. Implications for further research, and particularly that pertaining to the design of an Interlingua gateway to multilingual, metadata-enabled resources, are addressed.

0.010514337 = product of:
  0.042057347 = sum of:
    0.042057347 = product of:
      0.08411469 = sum of:
        0.08411469 = weight(_text_:terminology in 5526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08411469 = score(doc=5526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.34970397 = fieldWeight in 5526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the proliferation of digitized resources accessible internationally via Internet and Intranet knowledge bases and a pressing need to develop more sophisticated tools for the identification and retrieval of electronic resources, both general purpose and domain-specific metadata schemes have assumed a particular prominence. This has resulted in a growing number of online repositories that must be accessed using terminology that would be considered unfamiliar to most searchers. Assuming that a natural language "gateway" requiring no prior knowledge of specific metadata tagging could facilitate cross-repository searching, end-users were engaged in focus group testing of a "namespace" of common categories derived from nine metadata schemes. Findings and their implications within an international context are presented.

0.0046332246 = product of:
  0.018532898 = sum of:
    0.018532898 = product of:
      0.037065797 = sum of:
        0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037065797 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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