Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.09300606 = product of:
  0.18601212 = sum of:
    0.14622459 = weight(_text_:digital in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14622459 = score(doc=4723,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.7396035 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=4723,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Access of digital materials continues to be an issue of great significance in the development of digital libraries. The proliferation of information in the networked digital environment poses challenges as well as opportunities. The author reports on a wide array of activities in the field. While this publication is not intended to be exhaustive, the reader will find, in a single work, an overview of systems of knowledge organization and pertinent examples of their application to digital materials

Content

(1) Knowledge organization systems: an overview; (2) Linking digital library resources to related resources; (3) Making resources accessible to other communities; (4) Planning and implementing knowledge organization systems in digital libraries; (5) The future of knowledge organization systems on the Web

Imprint

Washington, DC : The Digital Library Federation; Council on Library and Information resources

0.088672936 = product of:
  0.11823058 = sum of:
    0.059695937 = weight(_text_:digital in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059695937 = score(doc=2429,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30194187 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=2429,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.027906192 = product of:
      0.055812385 = sum of:
        0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055812385 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.066314965 = product of:
  0.13262993 = sum of:
    0.091885336 = weight(_text_:library in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091885336 = score(doc=234,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.69721925 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Imprint

London : British Library

Pages

22 S

Series

British Library: Library and Information Commission research report; 74

0.049766533 = product of:
  0.099533066 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
    0.050791536 = weight(_text_:library in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050791536 = score(doc=5013,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38540247 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.034693256 = product of:
  0.06938651 = sum of:
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=5018,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 5018, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5018)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=5018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 5018, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5018)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Summarizes findings of an international study on information-seeking habits and preferences: With extensive input from hundreds of librarians and OCLC staff, the OCLC Market Research team developed a project and commissioned Harris Interactive Inc. to survey a representative sample of information consumers. In June of 2005, we collected over 3,300 responses from information consumers in Australia, Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Perceptions report provides the findings and responses from the online survey in an effort to learn more about: * Library use * Awareness and use of library electronic resources * Free vs. for-fee information * The "Library" brand The findings indicate that information consumers view libraries as places to borrow print books, but they are unaware of the rich electronic content they can access through libraries. Even though information consumers make limited use of these resources, they continue to trust libraries as reliable sources of information.

0.031112304 = product of:
  0.062224608 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 2398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=2398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2398)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 2398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=2398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2398, 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=2398)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

It may be jumping the gun a bit to review this publication before it is actually published, but we are nothing if not current here at Current Cites, so we will do it anyway (so sue us!). This publication-in-process is a joint effort of the Visual Resources Association and the Digital Library Federation. It aims to "provide guidelines for selecting, ordering, and formatting data used to populate catalog records" relating to cultural works. Although this work is far from finished (Chapters 1, 2, 7, and 9 are available, as well as front and back matter), the authors are making it available so pratictioners can use it and respond with information about how it can be improved to better aid their work. A stated goal is to publish it in print at some point in the future. Besides garnering support from the organizations named above as well as the Getty, the Mellon Foundation and others, the effort is being guided by experienced professionals at the top of their field. Get the point? If you're involved with creating metadata relating to any type of cultural object and/or images of such, this will need to be either on your bookshelf, or bookmarked in your browser, or both

0.03093262 = product of:
  0.06186524 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 906, 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=906)
    0.04272246 = product of:
      0.08544492 = sum of:
        0.08544492 = weight(_text_:project in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08544492 = score(doc=906,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.40387696 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The need for improved semantic in teroperability between and among vocabularies and knowledge organization schemes is undeniable and growing in importance. There is an ever-increasing need to create an environment by which even multiple portals could be accessed via subject metadata using software that is neutral and available ubiquitously or directly to the user, that could be copied by libraries for use in their own environment. In order to develop or improve a knowledge organization system including emerging options in semantic interoperability, scholars and practitioners need to be able to evaluate a wide variety of projects and stay current with the professional literature. Based on its findings, the Subcommittee concludes that the development of a successful subject semantic interoperability project is a long and difficult process. It requires a substantial investment of financial, human and computer resources. The Subcommittee recommends using the information and tools in this report and its appendices to assist in developing a successful project incorporating subject semantic interoperability. Finally the Subcommittee concludes that since this field of endeavor is still relatively young and immature, it is too early to generate a set of Best Practices that could be used in developing a successful project. We are past the theoretical and basic research phase and into the development phase. Even though there are some successful projects in full production, more projects need to reach maturity and much more research needs to be done.

Editor

Association for Library Collections and Technical Services / Subject Analysis Committee / Subcommittee on Semantic Interoperability

0.02320939 = product of:
  0.09283756 = sum of:
    0.09283756 = weight(_text_:library in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09283756 = score(doc=3782,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.7044446 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

London : British Library

Series

British Library: Library and Information Commission research report; 58

0.017232731 = product of:
  0.068930924 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=5016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The charge for the SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis states: Identify and study the major issues surrounding the use of metadata in the subject analysis and classification of digital resources. Provide discussion forums and programs relevant to these issues. Discussion forums should begin by Annual 1998. The continued need for the subcommittee should be reexamined by SAC no later than 2001.

0.015556152 = product of:
  0.031112304 = sum of:
    0.021540914 = weight(_text_:digital in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021540914 = score(doc=641,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10895388 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
    0.00957139 = weight(_text_:library in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00957139 = score(doc=641,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.07262701 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung 2. Bibliothekspolitik 3. Begriffsdefinitionen 3.1. Bibliothek - 3.2. Archiv - 3.3. Museum - 3.4. Information und Dokumentation - 3.5. Information - 3.6. Semantik und semantische Technologien - 3.7. Ontologie - 3.8. Recall und Precision 4. Bibliotheken aus statistischer Sicht - Kennzahlen 5. Bibliographische Tools 5.1. Austauschformate 5.1.1. MAB / MAB2 - 5.1.2. Allegro-C - 5.1.3. MARC 2 - 5.1.4. Z39.50 - 5.1.5. Weitere Formate 5.2. Kataloge / OPACs 5.2.1. Aleph 500 - 5.2.2. Allegro-C - 5.2.3. WorldCat beta 5.3. Dokumentationssysteme 5.4. Suchmaschinen 5.4.1. Convera und ProTerm - 5.4.2. APA Online Manager - 5.4.3. Google Scholar - 5.4.4. Scirus - 5.4.5. OAIster - 5.4.6. GRACE 5.5. Informationsportale 5.5.1. iPort - 5.5.2. MetaLib - 5.5.3. Vascoda - 5.5.4. Dandelon - 5.5.5. BAM-Portal - 5.5.6. Prometheus 6. Semantische Anreicherung 6.1. Indexierung - 6.2. Klassifikation - 6.3. Thesauri 38 - 6.4. Social Tagging 7. Projekte 7.1. Bibster - 7.2. Open Archives Initiative OAI - 7.3. Renardus - 7.4. Perseus Digital Library - 7.5. JeromeDL - eLibrary with Semantics 8. Semantische Technologien in BAM-InstitutionenÖsterreichs 8.1. Verbundkatalog des Österreichischen Bibliothekenverbunds - 8.2. Bibliotheken Online - WebOPAC der Öffentlichen Bibliotheken - 8.3. Umfrage-Design - 8.4. Auswertung 9. Fazit und Ausblick 10. Quellenverzeichnis 11. Web-Links 12. Anhang Vgl.: http://www.semantic-web.at/file_upload/1_tmpphp154oO0.pdf.

0.009523413 = product of:
  0.038093653 = sum of:
    0.038093653 = weight(_text_:library in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038093653 = score(doc=1271,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28905186 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

Editor

Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2433,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This report presents the results of desk-top based study of projects and initiatives in the area of linking and mapping subject tools. While its goal is to provide areas of further study for cross-language subject access in the European Library, and specifically the national libraries of the Ten New Member States, it is not restricted to cross-language mappings since some of the tools used to create links across thesauri or subject headings in the same language may also be appropriate for cross-language mapping. Tools reviewed have been selected to represent a variety of approaches (e.g. subject heading to subject heading, thesaurus to thesaurus, classification to subject heading) reflecting the variety of subject access tools in use in the European Library. The results show that there is no single solution that would be appropriate for all libraries but that parts of several initiatives may be applicable on a technical, organisational or content level.

0.006976548 = product of:
  0.027906192 = sum of:
    0.027906192 = product of:
      0.055812385 = sum of:
        0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055812385 = score(doc=172,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This document is part of a research project funded by the IST Programme of the Commission of the European Communities as project number IST-2004-507482.

0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=2627,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.

Imprint

Los Angeles : California Univ., Inst. of Library Research

0.0038285558 = product of:
  0.015314223 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 2000, Factiva published "The Value of Indexing," a white paper emphasizing the strategic importance of accurate categorization, based on a robust taxonomy for later retrieval of documents stored in commercial or in-house content repositories. Since that time, there has been resounding agreement between persons who use Web-based systems and those who design these systems that search engines alone are not the answer for effective information retrieval. High-quality categorization is crucial if users are to be able to find the right answers in repositories of articles and documents that are expanding at phenomenal rates. Companies continue to invest in technologies that will help them organize and integrate their content. A March 2002 article in EContent suggests a typical taxonomy implementation usually costs around $100,000. The article also cites a Merrill Lynch study that predicts the market for search and categorization products, now at about $600 million, will more than double by 2005. Classification activities are not new. In the third century B.C., Callimachus of Cyrene managed the ancient Library of Alexandria. To help scholars find items in the collection, he created an index of all the scrolls organized according to a subject taxonomy. Factiva's parent companies, Dow Jones and Reuters, each have more than 20 years of experience with developing taxonomies and painstaking manual categorization processes and also have a solid history with automated categorization techniques. This experience and expertise put Factiva at the leading edge of developing and applying categorization technology today. This paper will update readers about enhancements made to the Factiva Intelligent IndexingT taxonomy. It examines the value these enhancements bring to Factiva's news and business information service, and the value brought to clients who license the Factiva taxonomy as a fundamental component of their own Enterprise Knowledge Architecture. There is a behind-the-scenes-look at how Factiva classifies a huge stream of incoming articles published in a variety of formats and languages. The paper concludes with an overview of new Factiva services and solutions that are designed specifically to help clients improve productivity and make solid business decisions by precisely finding information in their own everexpanding content repositories.