Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030100305 = product of:
  0.06020061 = sum of:
    0.06020061 = product of:
      0.12040122 = sum of:
        0.12040122 = weight(_text_:22 in 6405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12040122 = score(doc=6405,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 6405, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 22(2000), S.15-22

0.024831483 = product of:
  0.049662966 = sum of:
    0.049662966 = product of:
      0.09932593 = sum of:
        0.09932593 = weight(_text_:22 in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09932593 = score(doc=210,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.1, S.11-15

0.024831483 = product of:
  0.049662966 = sum of:
    0.049662966 = product of:
      0.09932593 = sum of:
        0.09932593 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09932593 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.10, S.326-330

0.007999831 = product of:
  0.015999662 = sum of:
    0.015999662 = product of:
      0.031999324 = sum of:
        0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 2644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031999324 = score(doc=2644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2644, 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=2644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Defines classification. Discusses bibliographic classifications; subject classifications; subjects monitored in classifications; the order of subjects in classifications and the use of classifications. Many library managers question whether controlled subject access is necessary when most searches are done by title words. Where classification is used, the choice of scheme is more often determined by sociological reasoning than by informations cience consideration

0.007999831 = product of:
  0.015999662 = sum of:
    0.015999662 = product of:
      0.031999324 = sum of:
        0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 1808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031999324 = score(doc=1808,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1808, 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=1808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gives an overview of the classes for literature of the Library of Congress Classification scheme, the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme and the Universal Decimal Classification Scheme

0.007999831 = product of:
  0.015999662 = sum of:
    0.015999662 = product of:
      0.031999324 = sum of:
        0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031999324 = score(doc=2646,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.

Content

1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.

0.007999831 = product of:
  0.015999662 = sum of:
    0.015999662 = product of:
      0.031999324 = sum of:
        0.031999324 = weight(_text_:library in 3963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031999324 = score(doc=3963,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3963, 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=3963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"1. Introduction Multilingual and crosslingual access to information is receiving more and more attention. Maybe the most important reason for this development is the Internet. There are estimations that about half of its users are people with a mother tongue other than English and that this proportion is growing. Crosslingual access in this context means the possibility to get free text access to information using another (natural) language than the language of the information itself. This type of access is important for users with a good passive knowledge of a language but with only a small active vocabulary of the same language, e.g. a Englishman who can read Russian, but has difficulties in formulating adequate search request in that language. Crosslingual access can also be valuable for monolingual users who can automatically or manually have translations of foreign language documents. The search requests will be translated or converted into the language of the information. Multilingual access assumes that the instruments used for access, the controlled information languages, are available in more than one language. An classic example is the Englishman who uses his English edition of the Universal Decimal Classification to search the catalogue of a library in China, although the classification of the library is done using a Chinese edition. In this case the searching and the classifying results in a notation that is the same irrespective which language edition was used for indexing. Another possibility is the use of a multilingual thesaurus or subject headings list, such the trilingual edition of the Library of Congress Subject Headings built at the Royal Library in Brussels (Belgium) or the Macrothesaurus of the OECD. Here, words are the access points - in one language into which each search request will be converted, or, alternatively, into all the languages involved. Multilingual information languages and guidelines an how to build them are the subject of this paper. Particular attention will be paid to multilingual thesauri."

0.0059998734 = product of:
  0.011999747 = sum of:
    0.011999747 = product of:
      0.023999494 = sum of:
        0.023999494 = weight(_text_:library in 2705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023999494 = score(doc=2705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2705, 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=2705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the documentation of cartographic materials and geographic information (CM), the accessibility by area or subject plays a major role. In contrast to most library documents, title and author are of minor importance in the retrieval process for CM. Most maps do not mention authors or titles at all. In the new generation of cataloguing rules for CM, an area code followed by a code for subject are defined as the main entry. Concerning CM, the present UDC provisions are so cumbersome that the creation of new auxiliary tables for CM was felt necessary. The proposed new tables consist of an auxiliary table of place, with <...> as the identifying mark, and a table for subjects on CM as a special auxiliary table to the existing general auxiliary (084.3). In this article, the new UDC auxiliary tables for CM are summarized and the underlying problems and considerations are given in context

0.0059998734 = product of:
  0.011999747 = sum of:
    0.011999747 = product of:
      0.023999494 = sum of:
        0.023999494 = weight(_text_:library in 3926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023999494 = score(doc=3926,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3926, 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=3926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0049998946 = product of:
  0.009999789 = sum of:
    0.009999789 = product of:
      0.019999579 = sum of:
        0.019999579 = weight(_text_:library in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019999579 = score(doc=5857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 5857, 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=5857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The IFLA study Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) set a new frame for both cataloguing codes and subject analysis. The Paris Principles defined the functions of the catalogue followed by both cataloguing codes used in Slovenia: P. Kalan's Abecedni imenski katalog and E. Verona's Pravilnik i prirunik za izradbe abecednih kataloga. FRBR defines the functions for records themselves, irrespective of the type of the database consisting of these records. Compared to the requirements for the national bibliographic records as defined by FRBR, the records belonging to the Slovenian national bibliography show more descriptive elements and less notes on bibliographic history, which reflects in lack of uniform titles. As the uniform title itself enables the identification of related works and their expressions, this practice does not satisfy the FRBR requirements. Differences in the extent of records for different types of material derive from decentralised processing at the National and University Library. It is therefore necessary to establish uniform criteria for both the materials included into the Slovenian national bibliography, and the extent of data elements.