Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021371057 = product of:
  0.032056585 = sum of:
    0.016631098 = weight(_text_:to in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016631098 = score(doc=191,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20086816 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
    0.015425485 = product of:
      0.03085097 = sum of:
        0.03085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03085097 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

International efforts to provide authority control include the work of IFLA, the AUTHOR Project funded by the European Commission, and related work conducted under the auspices of the ICA/CDS. IFLA developed the guidelines Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, documented the formulation of names along the lines of national origin in its publication Names of Persons, and published Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. Attention has shifted from a single authority record for each entity that would be shared internationally through the exchange of records to linking parallel authority records for the same entity. The access control of the future will account for difference in cataloging rules, transliteration standards, and cultural differences within the same language as well as for the need for different languages and scripts and will enable users to display the script and form of a heading that they expect. Project AUTHOR is a shared set of resource national authority files that used selections from the authority files of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. The prototype tested an adaptation of Z39.50 server software for authority records and displays for user interface. An international standard for authority control records has been developed for corporate bodies, persons, and families. Through joint meetings efforts have been synchronized to develop authority control at the international level.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.011031823 = product of:
  0.033095468 = sum of:
    0.033095468 = weight(_text_:to in 5667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033095468 = score(doc=5667,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.39972258 = fieldWeight in 5667, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5667)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.009505464 = product of:
  0.028516391 = sum of:
    0.028516391 = weight(_text_:to in 5663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028516391 = score(doc=5663,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.34441712 = fieldWeight in 5663, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5663)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The teaching of authority control in schools of library and information science has been given little attention until recently. A 2002 article reported that only a little over a third of respondents to a questionnaire believed they had learned about authority control in school. This paper reports a survey of teachers to determine how much authority control is taught in school. Respondents all emphasized the importance of trying to teach authority control to all students of library science and enthusiastically shared their methodologies, while admitting that it is a difficult concept to get across to students. Teachers also face non-understanding from colleagues, lack of course time, and competition from technology courses.

0.009505464 = product of:
  0.028516391 = sum of:
    0.028516391 = weight(_text_:to in 2619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028516391 = score(doc=2619,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.34441712 = fieldWeight in 2619, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2619)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

To investigate which authority data elements are recorded by libraries in the Chinese character cultural sphere (e.g., Japan, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Vietnam), data elements recorded by each library were examined and compared to authority data elements defined in the standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) design. Recommendations were then made to libraries within this cultural sphere to improve and internationally standardize their authority data. In addition, suggestions are provided to modify RDA in an effort to increase compatibility with authority data in the Chinese character cultural sphere.

0.009505464 = product of:
  0.028516391 = sum of:
    0.028516391 = weight(_text_:to in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028516391 = score(doc=698,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.34441712 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The concept of authorship is central to how libraries organize their collections. But libraries do not only collect resources created by individuals, they also collect documents issued by organizations. Library catalogers use the concept of a "corporate body" to treat organizations as authors for the purpose of making their documents discoverable to users. This essay looks at the key features of establishing authorized access points (AAPs) and applying authority control for corporate bodies. It examines how practices with regard to corporate bodies have changed over time and considers the changes catalogers might expect to see in the future.

Content

Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1854914. Teil eines Themenheftes: Cataloging and Classification: Back to Basics.

0.00940797 = product of:
  0.02822391 = sum of:
    0.02822391 = weight(_text_:to in 2175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02822391 = score(doc=2175,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.34088457 = fieldWeight in 2175, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2175)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the experience of data conversion and migration at the libraries of the Home Office (HO) and the Dept. of the Environment (DoE), UK. Both HO and DoE libraries had changed from Anglo-American code cataloguing to AACR2 cataloguing in the mid-1970s. Both libraries were selective in identifying records for conversion initially to BLAISE-LOCAS. Conversion to integrated library systems from BLAISE-LOCAS MARC tapes produced problems in both libraries with location/holdings fields which were largely resolved at HO, but not resolved at DoE. HO experienced problems converting to a system with fixed field lengths. HO converted subject keywords to form a rudimentary, non-standard thesaurus which required the addition of Broader Term and Narrower Term to meet the challenge of computerized searching. DoE converted a non-thesaurus subject index to an authority file, but continued to maintain the index on a stand-alone DataEase application for use by cataloguers. Neither library converted acquisitions data

0.00940797 = product of:
  0.02822391 = sum of:
    0.02822391 = weight(_text_:to in 5665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02822391 = score(doc=5665,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.34088457 = fieldWeight in 5665, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5665)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In its role as a national bibliographic agency, the Bibliografia Nazionale Italiana (BNI) has never been in a position to fulfill what should be one of its main functions: authority control. Despite the creation of various committees, studies, and projects, and the close relationship between the BNI and the Servizio Bibliotecario Nazionale (SBN), no plan of action with regard to authority control, whether shared or developed in consultation, has been produced to date. Recently, a significant result was achieved: the specification of the new BNI/UNIMARC database, structured according to authority control principles. And in collaboration with the Region of Tuscany, a project for control of access points destined for the users and librarians of that region is in progress, providing the opportunity to initiate the systematic control of BNI access points. The BNI is now in a position to begin to realize the first objective recommended by the IFLA Working Group on an International Authority System more than twenty years ago: to establish authority headings, including cross-references, for its bibliographic records.

0.0087653585 = product of:
  0.026296074 = sum of:
    0.026296074 = weight(_text_:to in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026296074 = score(doc=2506,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.31760043 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

This paper looks at approaches to name authority control in repository contexts and describes the work of the Names project, which has been funded to investigate issues surrounding the identification of individuals and institutions within repositories of research outputs in the United Kingdom. The problem of uniquely identifying authors has been with us ever since books have been catalogued. National libraries have been creating name authority files for authors of books for many years, starting with card catalogues and now maintaining electronic files in MARC format. However, authority files for the creators of journal articles do not tend to exist in library systems. The increasing use of subject-based and institutional repositories to hold working papers, reports, research data, and pre-refereed and post-referred versions of articles has led to a corresponding rise in the number of authors identified in such systems. Without having a means of uniquely and unambiguously identifying the creators of materials in repositories, it becomes difficult to be sure whether all the materials related to a particular author will be correctly associated with that individual. Names of authors may be entered in more than one way, or more than one author may have exactly the same name. This article looks at recent attempts to address this problem in the repository environment and goes on to explain the approach that is planned to be taken in the Names project.

0.008677262 = product of:
  0.026031785 = sum of:
    0.026031785 = weight(_text_:to in 121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026031785 = score(doc=121,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.3144084 = fieldWeight in 121, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=121)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article examines the motivations for the collaboration between the British Library and Library of Congress to develop a joint (Anglo-American) authority file. It describes the obstacles that had to be overcome for the British Library to become a Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) "copy holder", or node. It considers the contribution the British Library made to NACO, the benefits it has derived from participation in Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), and concludes by looking ahead to the next 25 years.

0.008315549 = product of:
  0.024946647 = sum of:
    0.024946647 = weight(_text_:to in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024946647 = score(doc=2288,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.30130222 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bibliographic data is used to describe resources held in the collections of libraries, archives and museums. That data is mostly available on the Web today and mostly as linked data. Also on the Web are the controlled vocabulary systems of name authority files, like the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), classification systems, and subject terms. These systems offer their own linked data to potentially help users find the information they want - whether at their local library or anywhere in the world that is willing to make their resources available. We have found it beneficial to merge authority data for names on a global level, as the entities are relatively clear. That is not true for subject concepts and terminology that have categorisation systems developed according to varying principles and schemes and are in multiple languages. Rather than requiring everyone in the world to use the same categorisation/classification system in the same language, we know that the Web offers us the opportunity to add descriptors assigned around the world using multiple systems from multiple perspectives to identify our resources. Those descriptors add value to refine searches, help users worldwide and share globally what each library does locally.

0.0077611795 = product of:
  0.023283537 = sum of:
    0.023283537 = weight(_text_:to in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023283537 = score(doc=5655,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28121543 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Authority control is necessary for meeting the catalog's objectives of enabling users to find the works of an author and to collocate all works of a person or corporate body. This article looks at the current state of authority control as compared to the visions of the 1979 LITA (Library Information and Technology Association) Institutes and the 1984 Authority Control Interest Group. It explores a new view of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) and a future vision of a virtual international authority file as a building block for the Semantic Web and reinforces the importance of authority control to improve the precision of searches of large databases or the Internet.

0.0077611795 = product of:
  0.023283537 = sum of:
    0.023283537 = weight(_text_:to in 5661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023283537 = score(doc=5661,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28121543 = fieldWeight in 5661, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5661)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the work of the IFLA Working Group of Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records. Describes the activities of the group to build liaison relationships with other sectors of the information community that create and maintain data which is similar to library authority files. Provides a description of the entity-relationship model being developed by the Working Group to extend the FRBR model to cover authority data. (Note: Readers should be aware that the Working Group's entity-relationship model has changed considerably since this paper was written in December 2002.)

0.0077611795 = product of:
  0.023283537 = sum of:
    0.023283537 = weight(_text_:to in 557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023283537 = score(doc=557,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28121543 = fieldWeight in 557, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=557)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A sample was taken of the name and title provisional, or minimal level, authority records created by Blackwell North America, Inc., during its authority control processing in preparation for the implementation of NOTIS at the State Univerity of New York at Buffalo Libraries. Analysis of the sample showed that approximately 10 % of theses provisional records were created unnecessarily, while approximately 7 % had Library of Congress Name Authority File recordsestablished since the vendor's work was completed. The remaining 83 %, which will require original authority work in order to be upgraded to 'full' status, are categorized in such a manner as to determine the best approach to achieving the libraries' goal of absolute authority control.

0.0077611795 = product of:
  0.023283537 = sum of:
    0.023283537 = weight(_text_:to in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023283537 = score(doc=707,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28121543 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper discusses the basics of creating name authority records for Arabic personal names in accordance with Resource Description and Access instructions and Program for Cooperative Cataloging guidelines. A background into the use of romanization for non-Latin scripts in bibliographic and authority records is provided to establish the context. Issues with romanization that are particular to Arabic are addressed. Separate sections on modern and classical names provide an overview of the major challenges, and strategies to enhance discovery are outlined. The paper concludes with an examination of the possible benefits of identity management and other changes in the authority control landscape for names in non-Latin script.

Content

Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1845896. Teil eines Themenheftes: Cataloging and Classification: Back to Basics.

0.006721379 = product of:
  0.020164136 = sum of:
    0.020164136 = weight(_text_:to in 1884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020164136 = score(doc=1884,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24353972 = fieldWeight in 1884, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1884)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article shares a vision of the enterprise of cataloging and the role of catalogers and metadata librarians in the twenty-first century. The revolutionary opportunities now presented by Semantic Web technologies liberate catalogers from their historically analog-based static world, re-conceptualize it, and transform it into a world of high dimensionality and fluidity. By presenting illustrative examples of innovative metadata creation and manipulation, such as non-MARC name authority records, we seek to contribute to the libraries' mission with innovative projects that enable discovery, development, communication, learning, and creativity, and hold promise to exceed users' expectations.

0.006721379 = product of:
  0.020164136 = sum of:
    0.020164136 = weight(_text_:to in 1939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020164136 = score(doc=1939,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24353972 = fieldWeight in 1939, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1939)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article describes the project to build the initial International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) database by deploying the techniques used to develop the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF). It focuses particularly on the work of the OCLC team in transforming the VIAF "resource file" model of matched data into a robust, operational, and authoritative file of uniquely assigned ISNIs as a base for an ongoing ISNI assignment system, and on the quality assurance validation of the database provided by the British Library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The need for future interaction between ongoing ISNI assignment and name authority control in libraries is also explored.

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue "Cataloging collaborations and partnerships"

0.00627198 = product of:
  0.018815938 = sum of:
    0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018815938 = score(doc=3707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports an Authority Control Project conducted by Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, in order to find a means to reduce the cost of authority control while maintaining, and preferably enhancing, accessibility of materials. Describes current authority control at Griffith University and discusses the mechanics of the project. Looks at the 4 stages of the project: defining the current situation; defining the future catalogue; examining the 7 options; and deciding on a solution

0.00627198 = product of:
  0.018815938 = sum of:
    0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018815938 = score(doc=3876,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.0061980444 = product of:
  0.018594133 = sum of:
    0.018594133 = weight(_text_:to in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018594133 = score(doc=5669,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22457743 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Today's electronic catalogue makes retrieval of specific records very simple and quick in most (not all) cases, but searches aimed at the reliable retrieval of all material answering a well-defined need (author, work, theme, form, etc.) are still long and tiring, and sometimes impossible, in crowded bibliographic databases. In spite of its great relevance, authority control has been and still is the "poor relative" of cataloguing, the often neglected or overlooked "other half" if we compare it to the creation of bibliographic records. The FRBR study and the new authority control standards (GARR and UNIMARC Authorities) are important steps towards future perspectives. Even today, cataloguing codes do not make clear the difference between the access points for bibliographic records and the relationships (work-to-work, author-to-work, etc.) that are independent from spoecific publications. With the development of richer authority records and relationships, the bibliographic record might be relieved of information related to entities different from publications and of all the functions more suitably worked out upstream or downstream in access systems or by links to the images and/or the texts of the publications themselves. A "light" bibliographic record would no longer be the paramount component of library information systems; it would keep its central role rather as nimble, swift turntable between access and content organization systems and systems for management and display of digital resources themselves.

0.005761182 = product of:
  0.017283546 = sum of:
    0.017283546 = weight(_text_:to in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017283546 = score(doc=5341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20874833 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 1996, a study was undertaken at the University of Arkansas Libraries to evaluate the practice of front-end authority work for monographs copy cataloging. A sample of 283 name headings originating from Library of Congress, OCLC "Enhance" member, and general member copy was examined, and analysis revealed that 47.3 percent of headings correctly matched authority records already present in the library's local file. Another 41.3 percent exactly matched records in the OCLC authority file. These findings prompted the library to cease checking name headings at the point of cataloging. However, the level of inaccuracies present, combined with the value of authority records for cross-reference and note information, ensured that the Database Maintenance Unit would continue to review local headings reports and perform needed authority work.