Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=5651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 5651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5651)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper outlines the development of serials cataloguing in Germany, which started with entries usually in systematic catalogues. Cataloguing codes were developed first by individual major libraries; the establishment of a Prussian union catalogue called for generally recognized rules, but these focused mainly on sorting and filing. When, in the 1960s, the Prussian Instructions were given up in favor of RAK (Regeln für Alphabetische Katalogisierung), ISBD was adopted for the descriptive part. As to modern international cooperation, this paper explains that the main obstacles are not so much different cataloguing codes but the lack of consensus on the definition of a serial title. Recent revision efforts missed the opportunity of accepting an International Standard Serials Title.

0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=5650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 5650, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5650)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper outlines the development of serials cataloguing in Germany, which started with entries usually in systematic catalogues. Cataloguing codes were developed first by individual major libraries; the establishment of a Prussian union catalogue called for generally recognized rules, but these focused mainly on sorting and filing. When, in the 1960s, the Prussian Instructions were given up in favor of RAK (Regeln für Alphabetische Katalogisierung), ISBD was adopted for the descriptive part. As to modern international cooperation, this paper explains that the main obstacles are not so much different cataloguing codes but the lack of consensus on the definition of a serial title. Recent revision efforts missed the opportunity of accepting an International Standard Serials Title.

0.022213116 = product of:
  0.06663935 = sum of:
    0.06663935 = product of:
      0.1332787 = sum of:
        0.1332787 = weight(_text_:22 in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1332787 = score(doc=935,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 935, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=935)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2007 12:05:26
22. 7.2007 12:08:24

0.019700034 = product of:
  0.0591001 = sum of:
    0.0591001 = sum of:
      0.032173738 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032173738 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.16916946 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
      0.026926363 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026926363 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, 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=3624)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

0.017536104 = product of:
  0.05260831 = sum of:
    0.05260831 = product of:
      0.15782493 = sum of:
        0.15782493 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15782493 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4212274 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ergebnis einer Umfrage aus dem Frühjahr 1993. A. Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken: Versandt wurde der Fragebogen an die Mitglieder der Sektion IV des DBV. Fragen: (1a) Um welchen Bestand handelt es sich, der sachlich erschlossen wird? (1b) Wie groß ist dieser Bestand? (1c) Wird dieser Bestand vollständig oder nur in Auswahl (einzelne Fächer, Lehrbücher, Dissertationen o.ä.) sachlich erschlossen? (1d) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (2) Auf welche Art wird der Bestand zur Zeit sachlich erschlossen? (3a) Welche Klassifikation wird angewendet? (3b) Gibt es alphabetisches SyK-Register bzw. einen Zugriff auf die Klassenbeschreibungen? (3c) Gibt es ergänzende Schlüssel für die Aspekte Ort, Zeit, Form? (4) Falls Sie einen SWK führen (a) nach welchem Regelwerk? (b) Gibt es ein genormtes Vokabular oder einen Thesaurus (ggf. nur für bestimmte Fächer)? (5) In welcher Form existieren die Sachkataloge? (6) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. in einem Verbund beteiligt? [Nein: 79%] (7) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 46%] (8) Welche sachlichen Suchmöglichkeiten gibt es für Benutzer? (9) Sind zukünftige Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Ja: 73%]. - B. Öffentliche Bibliotheken: Die Umfrage richtete sich an alle ÖBs der Sektionen I, II und III des DBV. Fragen: (1) Welche Sachkataloge führen Sie? (2) Welche Klassifikationen (Systematiken) liegen dem SyK zugrunde? [ASB: 242; KAB: 333; SfB: 4 (???); SSD: 11; Berliner: 18] (3) Führen Sie ein eigenes Schlagwort-Register zum SyK bzw. zur Klassifikation (Systematik)? (4) Führen Sie den SWK nach ...? [RSWK: 132 (= ca. 60%) anderen Regeln: 93] (5) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (6) In welcher Form existiern die Sachkataloge? (7) In welchem Umfang wird der Bestand erschlossen? (8) Welche Signaturen verwenden Sie? (9) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. einem Verbund, beteiligt? [Nein: 96%] (10) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 70%] (11) Woher beziehen Sie diese Fremdleistungen? (12) Verfügen Sie über ein Online-Katalogsystem mit OPAC? [Ja: 78; Nein: 614] (13) Sind zukünftig Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Nein: 458; Ja: 237]; RESÜMEE für ÖB: "(i) Einführung von EDV-Katalogen bleibt auch in den 90er Jahren ein Thema, (ii) Der Aufbau von SWK wird in vielen Bibliotheken in Angriff genommen, dabei spielt die Fremddatenübernahme eine entscheidende Rolle, (iii) RSWK werden zunehmend angewandt, Nutzung der SWD auch für andere Regeln wirkt normierend, (iv) Große Bewegung auf dem 'Systematik-Markt' ist in absehbarer Zeit nicht zu erwarten, (v) Für kleinere Bibliotheken wird der Zettelkatalog auf absehbare Zeit noch die herrschende Katalogform sein, (vi) Der erhebliche Nachholbedarf in den neuen Bundesländern wird nur in einem größeren Zeitraum zu leisten sein. ??? SPEZIALBIBIOTHEKEN ???

0.011219318 = product of:
  0.033657953 = sum of:
    0.033657953 = product of:
      0.06731591 = sum of:
        0.06731591 = weight(_text_:22 in 4056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06731591 = score(doc=4056,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4056, 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=4056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.3-22

0.011219318 = product of:
  0.033657953 = sum of:
    0.033657953 = product of:
      0.06731591 = sum of:
        0.06731591 = weight(_text_:22 in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06731591 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4064, 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=4064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 7.2006 20:06:22

0.008975455 = product of:
  0.026926363 = sum of:
    0.026926363 = product of:
      0.053852726 = sum of:
        0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053852726 = score(doc=4431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 22(1975) H.5, S.387-390

0.007853523 = product of:
  0.023560567 = sum of:
    0.023560567 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 5479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047121134 = score(doc=5479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2002) nos.1/2, S.3-22

0.00536229 = product of:
  0.016086869 = sum of:
    0.016086869 = product of:
      0.032173738 = sum of:
        0.032173738 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032173738 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.16916946 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

0.00536229 = product of:
  0.016086869 = sum of:
    0.016086869 = product of:
      0.032173738 = sum of:
        0.032173738 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032173738 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.16916946 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

0.0028048295 = product of:
  0.008414488 = sum of:
    0.008414488 = product of:
      0.016828977 = sum of:
        0.016828977 = weight(_text_:22 in 4610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016828977 = score(doc=4610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

24.10.2008 14:19:22