Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.11497667 = product of:
  0.22995333 = sum of:
    0.014125337 = product of:
      0.056501348 = sum of:
        0.056501348 = weight(_text_:based in 6816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056501348 = score(doc=6816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.39947033 = fieldWeight in 6816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6816)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.215828 = weight(_text_:frequency in 6816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.215828 = score(doc=6816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.7807447 = fieldWeight in 6816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6816)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

0.03894011 = product of:
  0.15576044 = sum of:
    0.15576044 = weight(_text_:frequency in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15576044 = score(doc=1781,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.5634539 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recognition, by libraries, of the need for improved efficiency and reliability in subject authority control in catalogues led to a study of the feasibility of automatically creating a subject heading validation file by scanning the OLUC. The premises were: that although the file would not be axhaustive, it would contain the majority of frequently used headings; and that the predicted level of accurary in the file would be high. A sample file of Library of Congress assigned subject headings, from the OCLC Subject Headings Corrections database was analyzed. Results showed that: the frequency of use varies inversely with the number of headings at a given rrate of use; a small number of headings with high frequencies of use accounts for the majority of total use, while a large proportion shows very low frequency of use; topical headings account for 2/3 of assigned headings; and error and obsolescence rates are both low and are in inverse relationship to the frequency of heading use. Concludes that an automatically generated subject heading validation file is feasible and could serve various purposes, including: verification of subject heading strings constructed by cataloguers; updating of subject headings in catalogue maintenance; and validation of subject headings during retrospective catalogue conversion

0.011130357 = product of:
  0.04452143 = sum of:
    0.04452143 = product of:
      0.08904286 = sum of:
        0.08904286 = weight(_text_:22 in 3247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08904286 = score(doc=3247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3247, 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=3247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

DDC-22

0.0095403055 = product of:
  0.038161222 = sum of:
    0.038161222 = product of:
      0.076322444 = sum of:
        0.076322444 = weight(_text_:22 in 3985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076322444 = score(doc=3985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3985, 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=3985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25.11.2005 18:37:22

0.0047701527 = product of:
  0.019080611 = sum of:
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 5.2001 16:22:21

0.0047701527 = product of:
  0.019080611 = sum of:
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=2205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2205, 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=2205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0047701527 = product of:
  0.019080611 = sum of:
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=3842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3842, 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=3842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:42

0.0029427784 = product of:
  0.011771114 = sum of:
    0.011771114 = product of:
      0.047084454 = sum of:
        0.047084454 = weight(_text_:based in 1653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047084454 = score(doc=1653,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 1653, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1653)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0023542228 = product of:
  0.009416891 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An informal survey was conducted for the purpose of identifying instructional materials used in teaching cataloging and classification in library and information science programs in the United States and Canada. Based on responses from instructors in these areas, three groups of instructional materials were identified: cataloging and classification tools, textbooks, and background and supplementary reading materials.

0.002059945 = product of:
  0.00823978 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 336, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=336)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Introduction to the methods of classifying and arranging library collections according to the DDC. It begins with a brief history of the DDC, followed by discussions, the methods of analyzing the subject content of documents to be classed, and the proper procedures of assigning class number. Its essential aims is to explain the proper methods of applying the DDC schedules, of locating and assigning the appropriate class number, and of synthesizing a class number if need be. Examples and exercises are based on ed. 20

0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=5541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Classification (LCC), being a system originally and specifically designed for the Library's own collection, generally eschews alternatives. Within the LCC schedules, alternatives are found occasionally in earlier editions; there are no alternative numbers in recently developed or revised schedules. On the other hand, many alternative numbers representing different treatment of specific types of materials such as bibliographies and monographic series are provided in LC MARC records. Such numbers may be used by other libraries that prefer the alternative treatment. In addition, many LC MARC records also include class or call numbers based on other classification schemes, including the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), the National Library of Medicine Classification (NLM), and the Superintendent of Documents Classification. The alternative class numbers assigned from other classification systems are provided as services to libraries not using the Library of Congress Classification.

0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 2181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=2181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2181)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid proliferation of digital resources, are forcing changes in bibliographic control to make it easier to use, understand, and apply subject data. Subject headings are no exception. The enormous volume and rapid growth of digital libraries and repositories and the emergence of numerous metadata schemes have spurred a reexamination of the way subject data are to be provided for such resources efficiently and effectively. To address this need, OCLC in cooperation with the Library of Congress, has taken a new approach, called FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology). FAST headings are based on the existing vocabulary in Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), but are applied with a simpler syntax than required by Library of Congress application policies. Adapting the LCSH vocabulary in a simplified faceted syntax retains the rich vocabulary of LCSH while making it easier to understand, control, apply, and use.

0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 3431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=3431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 3431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3431)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the current information environment characterized by the proliferation of digital resources, including collaboratively created and shared resources, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is facing the challenges of effective and efficient subject-based organization and retrieval of digital resources. To explore the feasibility of utilizing LCSH in a digital environment, we might need to revisit its basic characteristics. The objectives of our study were to analyze LCSH in both syntactic and relational structures, to discover the structural characteristics of LCSH, and to identify problems and issues for the feasibility of LCSH as an effective subject access tool. This study reports and discusses issues raised by the syntactic and hierarchical structures of LCSH that present challenges to its use in a networked environment. Given the results of this study, we recommend a number of provisional future directions for the development of LCSH towards further becoming a viable system for digital and networked resources.

0.0016646868 = product of:
  0.0066587473 = sum of:
    0.0066587473 = product of:
      0.02663499 = sum of:
        0.02663499 = weight(_text_:based in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02663499 = score(doc=1177,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This is the second part of an analysis of the methods that have been used to achieve or improve interoperability among metadata schemas and their applications in order to facilitate the conversion and exchange of metadata and to enable cross-domain metadata harvesting and federated searches. From a methodological point of view, implementing interoperability may be considered at different levels of operation: schema level (discussed in Part I of the article), record level (discussed in Part II of the article), and repository level (also discussed in Part II). The results of efforts to improve interoperability may be observed from different perspectives as well, including element-based and value-based approaches. As discussed in Part I of this study, the results of efforts to improve interoperability can be observed at different levels: 1. Schema level - Efforts are focused on the elements of the schemas, being independent of any applications. The results usually appear as derived element sets or encoded schemas, crosswalks, application profiles, and element registries. 2. Record level - Efforts are intended to integrate the metadata records through the mapping of the elements according to the semantic meanings of these elements. Common results include converted records and new records resulting from combining values of existing records. 3. Repository level - With harvested or integrated records from varying sources, efforts at this level focus on mapping value strings associated with particular elements (e.g., terms associated with subject or format elements). The results enable cross-collection searching. In the following sections, we will continue to analyze interoperability efforts and methodologies, focusing on the record level and the repository level. It should be noted that the models to be discussed in this article are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes, within a particular project, more than one method may be used.

0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 1176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=1176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 1176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1176)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The rapid growth of Internet resources and digital collections has been accompanied by a proliferation of metadata schemas, each of which has been designed based on the requirements of particular user communities, intended users, types of materials, subject domains, project needs, etc. Problems arise when building large digital libraries or repositories with metadata records that were prepared according to diverse schemas. This article (published in two parts) contains an analysis of the methods that have been used to achieve or improve interoperability among metadata schemas and applications, for the purposes of facilitating conversion and exchange of metadata and enabling cross-domain metadata harvesting and federated searches. From a methodological point of view, implementing interoperability may be considered at different levels of operation: schema level, record level, and repository level. Part I of the article intends to explain possible situations in which metadata schemas may be created or implemented, whether in individual projects or in integrated repositories. It also discusses approaches used at the schema level. Part II of the article will discuss metadata interoperability efforts at the record and repository levels.

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.