Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.044178404 = product of:
  0.1325352 = sum of:
    0.052265707 = weight(_text_:web in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052265707 = score(doc=731,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.0802695 = weight(_text_:computer in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0802695 = score(doc=731,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4945153 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This book offers a comprehensive guide to the world of metadata, from its origins in the ancient cities of the Middle East, to the Semantic Web of today. The author takes us on a journey through the centuries-old history of metadata up to the modern world of crowdsourcing and Google, showing how metadata works and what it is made of. The author explores how it has been used ideologically and how it can never be objective. He argues how central it is to human cultures and the way they develop. Metadata: Shaping Knowledge from Antiquity to the Semantic Web is for all readers with an interest in how we humans organize our knowledge and why this is important. It is suitable for those new to the subject as well as those know its basics. It also makes an excellent introduction for students of information science and librarianship.

LCSH

Computer science
Computer applications in arts and humanities
Popular computer science

Subject

Computer science
Computer applications in arts and humanities
Popular computer science

Theme

Semantic Web

0.034050807 = product of:
  0.10215242 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 5667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=5667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5667)
    0.04434892 = weight(_text_:web in 5667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04434892 = score(doc=5667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 5667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5667)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Forty years ago the ICCP in Paris laid the foundations of international co-operation in descriptive cataloging without explicitly speaking of authority control. Some of the factors in the evolution of authority control are the development of catalogs (from card catalog to local automation, to today's OPAC on the Web) and services provided by libraries (from individual service to local users to system networks, to the World Wide Web), as well as international agreements on cataloging (from Paris Principles to the UBC programme, to the report on Mandatory data elements for internationally shared resource authority records). This evolution progressed from the principle of uniform heading to the definition of authority entries and records, and from the responsibility of national bibliographic agencies for the form of the names of their own authors to be shared internationally to the concept of authorized equivalent heading. Some issues of the present state are the persisting differences among national rules and the aim of respecting both local culture and language and international readability.

0.0065539777 = product of:
  0.039323866 = sum of:
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 5490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=5490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 5490, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5490)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In 1943 the Japanese League of Young Librarians published Nippon Catalog Rules (NCR1942) based on ALA 1908, and adopted the author main-entry system for Japanese and Western materials. After World War II, the Japan Library Association (JLA) compiled and published NCR1952, based on ALA 1949 and LC 1949 but maintained the author main-entry system. The main-entry system was then replaced by an alternative heading method, which came to be known as the Description-Independent-System (DIS). NCR1965 adopted the main entry principle, which was based on the Paris Principles of 1961. NCR1977 was compiled and published by the JLA Cataloging Committee and based upon a "no-main-entry principle." Then in 1987, the Committee published the standard edition of the rules, which was completely compatible with the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD). NCR1987R was published in 1994 and NCR1987R01 in 2001, which included revised "Chapter 9: Computer Files," devised according to ISBD(ER).

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Cataloging principles and objectives guide the formation of cataloging rules governing the organization of information within the library catalog, as well as the function of the catalog itself. Changes in technologies wrought by the internet and the web have been the driving forces behind shifting cataloging practice and reconfigurations of cataloging rules. Modern cataloging principles and objectives started in 1841 with the creation of Panizzi's 91 Rules for the British Museum and gained momentum with Charles Cutter's Rules for Descriptive Cataloging (1904). The first Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) was adopted in 1961, holding their place through such codifications as AACR and AACR2 in the 1970s and 1980s. Revisions accelerated starting in 2003 with the three original FR models. The Library Reference Model (LRM) in 2017 acted as a catalyst for the evolution of principles and objectives culminating in the creation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2013.

0.005014823 = product of:
  0.030088935 = sum of:
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 4056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=4056,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4056, 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=4056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Pages

S.3-22

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=3859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data-modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid-1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early twentiethcentury British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911-1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can be classified. These he first divided into "accidental" and "inseparable" attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition-level and copy-level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into "physical" and "non-physical" attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstract hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity-the book-whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=4140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Among knowledge organizing institutions, libraries have a rich history of depicting persons as information. From personal authority records to descriptions of oral history interviews, libraries have amassed data on persons from a variety of perspectives. Within this set of traditions, however, subtle but significant shifts in practice and conception have occurred, particularly concerning how persons are interpreted and depicted and how such depictions are justified. To explore these issues, we looked to four specific library traditions: authority work, community information, oral history, and "human library" events. Within these traditions, we identified six standards guiding the representation of persons. We performed a content analysis of these standards, along with a semantic alignment and comparison of descriptive elements. From this analysis, we reconstructed an historical timeline and a set of narratives capturing changing definitions of people, a shifting focus from names to identities, and an increasing acceptance of varied sources of justification. Findings show not only a number of critical variations within library practices but also practical and ethical issues concerning the responsibility of libraries as well as the redistribution and reuse of library data on the web.

0.0040118583 = product of:
  0.024071148 = sum of:
    0.024071148 = product of:
      0.048142295 = sum of:
        0.048142295 = weight(_text_:22 in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048142295 = score(doc=4431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 22(1975) H.5, S.387-390

0.003510376 = product of:
  0.021062255 = sum of:
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 5479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=5479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5479, 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=5479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2002) nos.1/2, S.3-22