Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=2587,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the ever-increasing developments in information technology and networks, end users of the online environment now have integrated access to a variety of bibliographic databases, mainly library catalogues and A&I services, from a single terminal. While such a facility influences users' expectations and preferences in the searching, retrieval and presentation of bibliographic information, it raises an important question as to whether different bibliographic practices can use a similar or compatible set of principles for creating bibliographic records and files. This paper is an attempt to identify areas of possible reconciliation and also address some of the implications of such an issue.

Source

Library review. 47(1998) no.4, S.211-216

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=131,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

Source

Library review. 46(1997) no.5, S.339-343

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=3828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3828, 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=3828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library review. 44(1995) no.2, S.44-58

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 5101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=5101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 5101, 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=5101)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library review. 45(1996) no.4, S.19-29

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As a standard set of rules, AACR2 has received much attention in the literature of descriptive cataloguing. Considers that despite this extensive literature, an important aspect of the code, namely its relevance to the online environment, has not received much attention, particularly in terms of empirical research. Notes however that there is a general criticism that AACR2, being based on manual systems, does not correspond effectively to the online environment. From a review of the literature concludes that while the advent of online catalogues has changed both the internal structure and external appearance of library catalogues, a mojority of writers consider that radical changes in the code are impossible and undesirable in the near future, owing to various factors such as the belief that that MARC format is not conductive to radical change and the large size of existing catalogues created according to the current rules