Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

0.07864208 = product of:
  0.19660519 = sum of:
    0.16190538 = weight(_text_:books in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16190538 = score(doc=420,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6539958 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.03225517 = product of:
  0.080637924 = sum of:
    0.052878078 = weight(_text_:books in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052878078 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.21359414 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.023647794 = product of:
  0.11823897 = sum of:
    0.11823897 = weight(_text_:books in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11823897 = score(doc=3687,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.477611 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Man versetze sich für einen kurzen Augenblick in ein Wohnheimzimmer einer Studentin, die eine Hausarbeit in Politologie zum Thema "Der Sozialstaat in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von 1990 bis 2010" schreibt. Es ist zwei Uhr nachts, die Universitätsbibliothek hat geschlossen und die Studentin muss bis spätestens 14 Uhr am gleichen Tag die Arbeit einreichen. Verzweifelt sucht sie im Online-Katalog nach weiterer Literatur, um die Forschungsdiskussion in den Fußnoten weiter zu differenzieren. Sie findet auch die entsprechenden gedruckten Publikationen, auf die sie leider nicht zugreifen kann, da die Bibliothek geschlossen hat. Dabei hat "ihre" Universitätsbibliothek E-Books lizenziert, die sie allerdings nicht gefunden hat, da die E-Books nicht im Online-Katalog erfasst, sondern nur auf der Homepage der Einrichtung verlinkt sind. Bei der Rückgabe der Arbeit erfährt die Studentin, dass sie eine bessere Note erhalten hätte, wenn sie nur die Forschungsdiskussion differenziert dargestellt hätte. Eine vollständige Einbindung der lizenzierten E-Books im Online-Katalog ist der Wunsch vieler Bibliotheken. Insbesondere mit der vermehrten Verfügbarkeit konsortial oder national lizenzierter Sammlungen und Pakete ist das Angebot zusehends unübersichtlicher geworden und die bisherige Praxis, elektronische Dokumente parallel zu den gedruckten Exemplaren manuell formal und inhaltlich zu erschließen, stößt an organisatorische und ressourcenbedingte Grenzen. Einer direkten maschinellen Verarbeitung steht das Problem entgegen, dass die bibliografischen Metadaten der E-Books häufig im Format MARC 21 geliefert werden, die lokalen Bibliothekssysteme in der Regel aber mit den Formaten MAB2 und Pica arbeiten und Daten in anderen Formaten nicht verarbeiten können. Ein Lösungsansatz besteht darin, die bibliografischen Metadaten an zentraler Stelle zu konvertieren und zu harmonisieren und den Bibliotheken im Format MAB2 zur Verfügung zu stellen. Dieser Ansatz ist allerdings nur für statische E-BookSammlungen praktizierbar und durch den Aufwand der Konversion in "saubere" MAB2-Daten mit einem deutlichen zeitlichen Verzug verbunden.

0.02289688 = product of:
  0.1144844 = sum of:
    0.1144844 = weight(_text_:books in 1861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1144844 = score(doc=1861,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.4624449 = fieldWeight in 1861, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1861)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Many small libraries do not have the resources to build a holdings database but the availability of affordable scanners and improved OCR software has made possible a new approach for creating online databases. Describes the work undertaken at the Otto Hahn Library of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Germany, to create a database consisting of the titles, bibliographic descriptions and contents tables of books acquired by the library. The book information and table of contents pages are scanned and converted to text using OCR software. A computer program is used to extract as much information as possible, in particular from the CIP data with corrections and missing information being supplied manually. Finally, the information, which consists of: title; author; ISBN; publication year; call number; series; language; and other relevant information for books, as well as the entire table of contents, is stored and added to an Ovid database using the Ovid Local Loader software. Pays particular attention to the algorithm used to extract specific information from the CIP data. 2 OCR software packeges have been tested: OmniPage Pro 7.0 and FineReader 3.0. Experience has shown that FineReader is better at character recognition and retains the formatting better but OmniPage Pro is easier to train to recognize special characters

0.022207877 = product of:
  0.111039385 = sum of:
    0.111039385 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111039385 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.022207877 = product of:
  0.111039385 = sum of:
    0.111039385 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111039385 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.

0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 5573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=5573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 5573, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5573)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although academic libraries are increasingly converting stacks into collaborative spaces and physical books and journals are being replaced by their electronic counterparts, the concept of browsing as a means of discovery is seeing a resurgence in the world of search and discovery. While many users start their online research with electronic databases and library catalogues, interviews with North Carolina State University Libraries patrons provide evidence that physically browsing the shelves to find similar materials is still common. A growing awareness of the need to preserve this type of serendipitous discovery as a complement to keyword searching is inspiring the development of online virtual browsing tools that replace and enhance physical access to library stacks.

0.018317504 = product of:
  0.09158752 = sum of:
    0.09158752 = weight(_text_:books in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09158752 = score(doc=5887,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.36995593 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

"I can't presume to know how other catalogers view the systems, information resources, and institutions with which they engage on a daily basis. David Paton gives us a glimpse in this issue of the affective experiences of bibliographers and catalogers of artists' books in South Africa, and it is clear that the emotional range among them is wide. What I can say is that catalogers' feelings and worldviews, whatever they may be, give the library its shape. I think we can agree that the librarians who constructed the Library of Congress Classification around 1900, Melvil Dewey, and the many classifiers around the world past and present, have had particular sets of desires around control and access and order. We all are asked to submit to those desires in our library work, as well as our own pursuit of knowledge and pleasure reading. And every decision regarding the aboutness of a book, or about where to place it within a particular discipline, takes place in a cataloger's affective and experiential world. While the classification provides the outlines, the catalogers color in the spaces with the books, based on their own readings of the book descriptions and their interpretations of the classification scheme. The decisions they make and the structures to which they are bound affect the circulation of books and their readers across the library. Indeed, some of the encounters will be unexpected, strange, frustrating, frightening, shame-inducing, awe-inspiring, and/or delightful. The emotional experiences of students described in Mabee and Fancher's article, as well as those of any visitor to the library, are all affected by classificatory design. One concern is that a library's ordering principles may reinforce or heighten already existing feelings of precarity or marginality. Because the classifications are hidden from patrons' view, it is difficult to measure the way the order affects a person's mind and body. That a person does not consciously register the associations does not mean that they are not affected."

0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, 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=5352)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, 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=290)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, 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=2622)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.015863424 = product of:
  0.079317115 = sum of:
    0.079317115 = weight(_text_:books in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079317115 = score(doc=504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.014956179 = product of:
  0.0747809 = sum of:
    0.0747809 = weight(_text_:books in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0747809 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30206773 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.013879924 = product of:
  0.06939962 = sum of:
    0.06939962 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06939962 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243

0.013879924 = product of:
  0.06939962 = sum of:
    0.06939962 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06939962 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.013879924 = product of:
  0.06939962 = sum of:
    0.06939962 = weight(_text_:22 in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06939962 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2411)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 4.2020 20:22:29

0.01321952 = product of:
  0.0660976 = sum of:
    0.0660976 = weight(_text_:books in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0660976 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.

0.011777506 = product of:
  0.05888753 = sum of:
    0.05888753 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05888753 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

0.011217134 = product of:
  0.05608567 = sum of:
    0.05608567 = weight(_text_:books in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05608567 = score(doc=4530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.22655079 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in Mitt VÖB 64(2011) H.1, S.151-153 (S. Breitling): "Wie sieht die Rolle der Katalogisierung im 21. Jahrhundert aus? In diversen Blogs und Mailinglisten wird darüber seit geraumer Zeit diskutiert. Der Bereich Katalogisierung befindet sich in einer Phase tiefgreifenden Wandels, ausgelöst durch eine Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen veränderte Nutzererwartungen bei der Recherche und die wachsende Menge an neuen zu katalogisierenden Materialien (e-Books, Web-Ressourcen etc.) und Formaten nur zwei Aspekte darstellen. Das technische Umfeld wird nicht zuletzt durch fortgeschrittene Möglichkeiten im Bereich Retrieval und Präsentation geprägt. Wie schafft man es, dass Katalogisierung als Teil des gesamten Bibliothekswesens relevant und zeitgemäß bleibt? Welche der in Jahrzehnten Katalogisierungspraxis erarbeiteten Standards sind erhaltenswert, und welche sind im Hinblick auf den Fortschritt der IT und ein mögliches Semantic Web vielleicht gar nicht mehr nötig oder müssen an die Gegebenheiten angepasst werden? Mit diesen und anderen Fragen beschäftigt sich die Aufsatzsammlung "Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century". In der Community bekannte Personen wie Martha Yee, Christine Schwartz oder James Weinheimer kommen zu Wort, aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum Bernhard Eversberg, Entwickler des Bibliothekssystems Allegro.
Ein großes Thema ist erwartungsgemäß das neue Regelwerk RDA, das, um es vorwegzunehmen, bei den drei Autoren, die sich ausschließlich diesem Gesichtspunkt widmen, vorwiegend auf Kritik stößt. Erstmals publiziert wird an dieser Stelle eine Studie der Herausgeberin Elaine R. Sanchez, die ein Meinungsbild der einschlägig tätigen Bibliothekarinnen (wie z.B. Titelaufnehmerinnen, Systembibliothekarinnen) zum Umstieg auf RDA zeichnet. Wie in den anderen Kapiteln liegt auch hier der Schwerpunkt auf dem US- bzw. anglo-amerikanischen Raum, was einen Blick über den eigenen Tellerrand ermöglicht und eine Grundstimmung einfängt, der man auch in Europa und hierzulande angesichts internationaler Kooperationen und zunehmend globaler Ausrichtung bei Standards und Regelwerken Beachtung schenken sollte. Andere Beiträge setzen sich mit Themen auseinander, die ebenfalls die Rolle der Katalogisierung unter sich ständig und rasant verändernden Bedingungen betreffen: die Bedeutung von bibliographischen Standards (und Qualitätsstandards im besonderen) im Zeitalter von Google Books, das Titeldaten aus Bibliotheken "nur noch" in einem Mashup mit anderen algorithmisch aufbereiteten Daten verarbeitet; das sich wandelnde Berufsbild von Titelaufnehmerinnen, die mit traditionellen Materialien und Datenformaten arbeiten, hin zu Metadaten-Spezialisten, die sich durch Kenntnisse digitaler Objekte und der entsprechenden Formate wie etwa Dublin Core auszeichnen; Anpassung von Workflows an die technischen Möglichkeiten der Automatisierung und Digitalisierung; Anforderungen an Ausbildung und berufliche Weiterbildung von Katalogisierungsexpertinnen etc. Eine chronologische Bibliographie von Literatur mit Bezug auf Bibliotheken und Katalogisierung von 1800 bis heute beschließt den Band.