Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.038114388 = product of:
  0.09528597 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 132, 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=132)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper surveys the cataloging literature to collect problems that have been identified with the MARC 21 format. The problems are sorted into (1) problems that are not the fault of MARC 21; (2) problems that perhaps are not problems at all; (3) problems that are connected with the current shared cataloging environment; and 4) other problems with MARC 21 and vendor implementation of it. The author makes recommendations to deal with the true MARC 21 problems that remain after this analysis.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02858579 = product of:
  0.07146447 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 4503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=4503,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 4503, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4503)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 4503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=4503,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4503, 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=4503)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Anglo-American codes are examined to determine the implicit or acting concept of work in each, in order to trace the development of our current implicit concept of work, as embodied in AACR2R. The following conditions are examined, using comparison tables. (1) same work with different appendages (illustrated works, music with text, texts with commentary and/or biographical/critical material, scholia); (2) separately published parts of a work produced by the exercise of several different functions; (3) appendages to a work published separately (commentaries without text, concordances, continuations, indexes, sequels, supplements); (4) change in title of a work. A trend away from the collocation of the editions of a work called for by the second objective of the catalog is identified. It is suggested that this tendency stems from failure to take advantage of newer technologies for building catalogs

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Pt.1: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.1, S.9-28; Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.4: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.2, S.3-24

0.016393948 = product of:
  0.08196974 = sum of:
    0.08196974 = weight(_text_:it in 1684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08196974 = score(doc=1684,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.54229915 = fieldWeight in 1684, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1684)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Understanding FRBR: what it is and how it will affect our retrieval tools. Ed. by Arlene Taylor

0.009912886 = product of:
  0.04956443 = sum of:
    0.04956443 = weight(_text_:22 in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04956443 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 735, 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=735)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.3: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.1, S.25-46; Pt.4: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.2, S.3-24

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 5945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=5945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5945, 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=5945)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 595, 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=595)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Pt.1: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.1, S.9-28; Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.3: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.1, S.25-46.

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 8337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=8337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 8337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8337)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

First in a series of articles dealing with the general concept of work as it applies to the cataloguing of materials. In a well designed catalogue, 2 items treated as the same work will display together and be represented as manifestations (editions) or copies of the same work to the user interested in a particular work. Discusses the concepts of work and related work as they apply to moving image works, and recommends their application to woving image works

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 5416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=5416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 5416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5416)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Moving Image Genre-Form Guide and Library of Congress Subject Headings are compared as sources of genre or form terms for moving image and broadcast materials. Based on the findings of this comparison, it is recommended that any library, media collection or archive that uses LCSH for the provision of topical subject access to moving images and broadcast materials strongly consider using LCSH for genre and form access to moving images and broadcast materials as well. A number of recommendations are made for improving LCSH as a tool for form and genre access to moving image materials and an exhaustive list of LCSH terms which are examples of a form or genre is appended.

0.0038640907 = product of:
  0.019320453 = sum of:
    0.019320453 = weight(_text_:it in 5069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019320453 = score(doc=5069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.12782113 = fieldWeight in 5069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5069)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

As mentioned above, the guidelines are intended to apply to all types of catalogue, including Web-based catalogues, GUI-based interfaces, and Z39.50-web interfaces. The focus of the guidelines is on the display of cataloguing information (as opposed to circulation, serials check-in, fund accounting, acquisitions, or bindery information). However, some general statements are made concerning the value of displaying to users information that is drawn from these other types of records. The guidelines do not attempt to cover HELP screens, searching methods, or command names and functions. Thus, the guidelines do not directly address the difference between menu-mode access (so common now in GUI and Web interfaces) vs. command-mode access (often completely unavailable in GUI and Web interfaces). However, note that in menu-mode access, the user often has to go through many more screens to attain results than in command-mode access, and each of these screens constitutes a display. The intent is to recommend a standard set of display defaults, defined as features that should be provided for users who have not selected other options, including users who want to begin searching right away without much instruction. It is not the intent to restrict the creativity of system designers who want to build in further options to offer to advanced users (beyond the defaults), advanced users being those people who are willing to put some time into learning how to use the system in more sophisticated and complex ways. The Task Force is aware of the fact that many existing systems are not capable of following all of the recommendations in this document. We hope that existing systems will attempt to work toward the implementation of the guidelines as they develop new versions of their software in the future.