Search (42 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=321)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper traces the history of the concept of intellectual level in cataloging and classification in the United States. Past cataloging codes, subject-heading practice, and classification systems have provided library users with little systematic information concerning the intellectual level or intended audience of works. Reasons for this omission are discussed, and arguments are developed to show that this kind of information would be a useful addition to the catalog record of the present and the future.

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper summarizes the papers presented by the members of the panel on "The Concept of Intellectual Level in Cataloging and Classification." The implication of adding intellectual level to the MARC record and creating intellectual level indexes in online catalogs are discussed. Conclusion is reached that providing intellectual level will not only be costly but may perhaps even be a disservice to library users.

0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=5175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5175, 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=5175)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3413, 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=3413)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.3, S.165-167 (W. Bies); JASIS 46(1995) no.5, S.389-390 (E.G. Bierbaum); Canadian journal of information and library science 20(1995) nos.3/4, S.52-53 (L. Rees-Potter)

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=5497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5497, 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=5497)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=5845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5845, 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=5845)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on a study of children's intentions, purposes, search terms, strategies, successes and breakdowns in accessing fiction. Data was gathered using naturalistic methods of persistent, intensive observation and questioning with children in several school library media centres in the USA, including 997 OPAC transactions. Analyzes the data and highlights aspects of the broader context of the system which may help in development of mechanisms for electronic access

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=3418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3418, 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=3418)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between documentoriented views versus request-oriented views. The documentoriented view conceives subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policybased view) understands subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the document's informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the document's potentials of informing users and advancing the development of knowledge.

0.0061664553 = product of:
  0.024665821 = sum of:
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Creative professionals in advertising, marketing, design and journalism search for images to visually represent a concept for their project. The main purpose of this paper is to present search facets derived from an analysis of documents known as briefs, which are widely used in creative industries as requirement documents describing information needs. The briefs specify the type of image required, such as the content and context of use for the image and represent the topic from which the searcher builds an image query. We take three main sources-user image search behaviour, briefs, and image search engine search facets-to examine the search facets for image searching in order to examine the following research question-are search facet schemes for image search engines sufficient for user needs, or is revision needed? We found that there are three main classes of user search facet, which include business, contextual and image related information. The key argument in the paper is that the facet "keyword/tag" is ambiguous and does not support user needs for more generic descriptions to broaden search or specific descriptions to narrow their search-we suggest that a more detailed search facet scheme would be appropriate.

0.0058023473 = product of:
  0.02320939 = sum of:
    0.02320939 = weight(_text_:library in 3648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02320939 = score(doc=3648,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17611115 = fieldWeight in 3648, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3648)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

One knows one is in the presence of "theory" when fundamental questions of a "why" nature are asked. Too often it happens that those involved in the design of bibliographic information systems have no time for brooding. It is thus noteworthy when someone appears an the bibliographic scene who troubles to address, and pursue with philosophic rigor, fundamental questions about the way we organize information. Such a person is Patrick Wilson, formerly philosophy professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and since 1965, an the faculty of the School of Library and Information Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Bibliographic control is the central concept of Wilson's book Two Kinds of Power. It is represented as a kind of power-a power over knowledge. That power is of two kinds: descriptive and exploitive. Descriptive power is the power to retrieve all writings that satisfy some "evaluatively neutral" description, for instance, all writings by Hobbes or all writings an the subject of eternat recurrence. Descriptive power is achieved insofar as the items in our bibliographic universe are fitted with descriptions and these descriptions are syndetically related. Exploitive power is a less-familiar concept, but it is more important since it can be used to explain why we attempt to order our bibliographic universe in the first place. Exploitive power is the power to obtain the best textual means to an end. Unlike the concept of descriptive power, that of exploitive power has a normative aspect to it. Someone possessing such power would understand the goal of all bibliographic activity; that is, he would understand the diversity of user purposes and the relativity of what is valuable; he would be omniscient both as a bibliographer and as a psychologist. Since exploitive power is ever out of reach, descriptive power is used as a substitute or approximation for it. How adequate this approximation is is the subject of Wilson's book. The particular chapter excerpted in this volume deals with the adequacy of subject access methods. Cutter's statement that one of the objects of a library catalog is to show what the library has an a given subject is generally accepted, as though it were obvious what "being an a given subject" means. It is far from obvious. Wilson challenges the underlying presumption that for any document a heading can be found that is coextensive with its subject. This presumption implies that there is such a thing as the (singular) subject of a document and that it can be identified. But, as Wilson Shows in his elaborate explication, the notion of "subject" is essentially indeterminate, with the consequence that we are limited in our attempts to achieve either descriptive or exploitive power.

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2247, 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=2247)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical investigation of the concept of 'subject' or 'subject matter' in library and information science. Most conceptions of 'subject' in the literature are not explicit but implicit. Various indexing and classification theories, including automatic indexing and citation indexing, have their own more or less implicit concepts of subject. This fact puts the emphasis on making the implicit theorie of 'subject matter' explicit as the first step. ... The different conceptions of 'subject' can therefore be classified into epistemological positions, e.g. 'subjective idealism' (or the empiric/positivistic viewpoint), 'objective idealism' (the rationalistic viewpoint), 'pragmatism' and 'materialism/realism'. The third and final step is to propose a new theory of subject matter based on an explicit theory of knowledge. In this article this is done from the point of view of a realistic/materialistic epistemology. From this standpoint the subject of a document is defined as the epistemological potentials of that document

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 5631, 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=5631)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Australian library journal. 42(1993) no.1, S.33-46

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=4444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 4444, 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=4444)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper establishes a taxonomy of image-text relationships that reflects the ways that images and text interact. It is applicable to all subject areas and document types. The taxonomy was developed to answer the research question: how does an illustration relate to the text with which it is associated, or, what are the functions of illustration? Developed in a two-stage process - first, analysis of relevant research in children's literature, dictionary development, education, journalism, and library and information design and, second, subsequent application of the first version of the taxonomy to 954 image-text pairs in 45 Web pages (pages with educational content for children, online newspapers, and retail business pages) - the taxonomy identifies 49 relationships and groups them in three categories according to the closeness of the conceptual relationship between image and text. The paper uses qualitative content analysis to illustrate use of the taxonomy to analyze four image-text pairs in government publications and discusses the implications of the research for information retrieval and document design.

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2258, 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=2258)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This paper examines three themes in the design of search support services: linking different genres of reference resources (e.g. bibliographies, biographical dictionaries, catalogs, encyclopedias, place name gazetteers); the division of vocabularies by facet (e.g. What, Where, When, and Who); and mapping between both similar and dissimilar vocabularies. Different vocabularies within a facet can be used in conjunction, e.g. a place name combined with spatial coordinates for Where. In practice, vocabularies of different facets are used in combination in the representation or description of complex topics. Rich opportunities arise from mapping across vocabularies of dissimilar reference genres to recreate the amenities of a reference library. In a network environment, in which vocabulary control cannot be imposed, semantic correspondence across diverse vocabularies is a challenge and an opportunity.

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6525, 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=6525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.5-18

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
      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

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 703, 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=703)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

It is a truism in information science that indexing is associated with 'aboutness', and that index terms that accurately represent what a document is about will serve the needs of the user/searcher well. It is contended in this paper that indexing which is limited to the representation of aboutness serves the novice in a discipline adequately, but does not serve the scholar or researcher, who is concerned with highly specific aspects of or points-of-view on a subject. The linguistic analogs of 'aboutness' and 'aspects' are 'topic' and 'comment' respectively. Serial indexing services deal with topics at varyng levels of specificity, but neglect comment almost entirely. This may explain the underutilization of secondary information services by scholars, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in user studies. It may also account for the incomplete lists of bibliographic references in many research papers. Natural language searching of fulltext databases does not solve this problem, because the aspect of a topic of interest to researchers is often inexpressible in concrete terms. The thesis is illustrated with examples of indexing failures in research projects the author has conducted on a range of linguistic and library-information science topics. Finally, the question of whether indexing can be improved to meet the needs of researchers is examined

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 5740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=5740,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 5740, 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=5740)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This guide, for beginning catalogers with humanities or social sciences backgrounds, provides assistance in subject analysis (based on Library of Congress Subject Headings) of theses and dissertations (T/Ds) that are produced by graduate students in university departments in the hard sciences (physical sciences and engineering). It is aimed at those who have had little or no experience in cataloging, especially of this type of material, and for those who desire to supplement local mentoring resources for subject analysis in the hard sciences. Theses and dissertations from these departments present a special challenge because they are the results of current research representing specific new concepts with which the cataloger may not be familiar. In fact, subject headings often have not yet been created for the specific concept(s) being researched. Additionally, T/D authors often use jargon/terminology specific to their department. Catalogers often have many other duties in addition to subject analysis of T/Ds in the hard sciences, yet they desire to provide optimal access through accurate, thorough subject analysis. Tips are provided for determining the content of the T/D, strategic searches on WorldCat for possible subject headings, evaluating the relevancy of these subject headings for final selection, and selecting appropriate subdivisions where needed. Lists of basic reference resources are also provided.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3182, 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=3182)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.