Search (1532 results, page 1 of 77)

0.15493703 = product of:
  0.23240553 = sum of:
    0.16884434 = weight(_text_:title in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16884434 = score(doc=1675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.6154058 = fieldWeight in 1675, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1675)
    0.063561186 = product of:
      0.12712237 = sum of:
        0.12712237 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12712237 = score(doc=1675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.5339854 = fieldWeight in 1675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

0.14109348 = product of:
  0.21164021 = sum of:
    0.16714738 = weight(_text_:title in 5651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16714738 = score(doc=5651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.6092207 = fieldWeight in 5651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5651)
    0.04449283 = product of:
      0.08898566 = sum of:
        0.08898566 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 5651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898566 = score(doc=5651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 5651, 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=5651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.13697192 = product of:
  0.20545787 = sum of:
    0.18877374 = weight(_text_:title in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18877374 = score(doc=124,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.68804467 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
    0.016684124 = product of:
      0.03336825 = sum of:
        0.03336825 = weight(_text_:22 in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03336825 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 124, 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=124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Cornell University Library (CUL) has developed a largely automated method for providing title-level catalog access to electronic journals made available through aggregator packages. CUL's technique for automated e-journal record creation and maintenance relies largely on the conversion of externally supplied metadata into streamlined, abbreviated-level MARC records. Unlike the Cooperative Online Serials Cataloging Program's recently implemented aggregator-neutral approach to e-journal cataloging, CUL's method involves the creation of a separate bibliographic record for each version of an e-journal title in order to facilitate automated record maintenance. An indexed local field indicates the aggregation to which each title belongs and enables machine manipulation of all the records associated with a specific aggregation. Information encoded in another locally defined field facilitates the identification of all of the library's e-journal titles and allows for the automatic generation of a Web-based title list of e-journals. CUL's approach to providing title-level catalog access to its e-journal aggregations involves a number of tradeoffs in which some elements of traditional bibliographic description (such as subject headings and linking fields) are sacrificed in the interest of timeliness and affordability. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) and holdings information are updated on a regular basis by use of automated methods that save on staff costs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.13032612 = product of:
  0.19548917 = sum of:
    0.17546822 = weight(_text_:title in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17546822 = score(doc=2548,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.63954854 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
    0.020020949 = product of:
      0.040041897 = sum of:
        0.040041897 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040041897 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2548, 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=2548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This review of 2004 and 2005 serials literature covers the themes of cost, management, and access. Interwoven through the serials literature of these two years are the importance of collaboration, communication, and linkages between scholars, publishers, subscription agents and other intermediaries, and librarians. The emphasis in the literature is on electronic serials and their impact on publishing, libraries, and vendors. In response to the crisis of escalating journal prices and libraries' dissatisfaction with the Big Deal licensing agreements, Open Access journals and publishing models were promoted. Libraries subscribed to or licensed increasing numbers of electronic serials. As a result, libraries sought ways to better manage licensing and subscription data (not handled by traditional integrated library systems) by implementing electronic resources management systems. In order to provide users with better, faster, and more current information on and access to electronic serials, libraries implemented tools and services to provide A-Z title lists, title by title coverage data, MARC records, and OpenURL link resolvers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.12941244 = product of:
  0.19411866 = sum of:
    0.09551279 = weight(_text_:title in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09551279 = score(doc=2647,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3481261 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.09860587 = sum of:
      0.071911275 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071911275 = score(doc=2647,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049257044 = queryNorm
          0.30206773 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.026694598 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026694598 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049257044 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.

Content

1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

0.12700345 = product of:
  0.19050516 = sum of:
    0.16714738 = weight(_text_:title in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16714738 = score(doc=5365,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.6092207 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.023357773 = product of:
      0.046715546 = sum of:
        0.046715546 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046715546 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.

0.12093727 = product of:
  0.1814059 = sum of:
    0.14326918 = weight(_text_:title in 5650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14326918 = score(doc=5650,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.52218914 = fieldWeight in 5650, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5650)
    0.038136713 = product of:
      0.07627343 = sum of:
        0.07627343 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 5650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07627343 = score(doc=5650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 5650, 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=5650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.11866939 = product of:
  0.17800409 = sum of:
    0.1462235 = weight(_text_:title in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1462235 = score(doc=4739,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.5329571 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
    0.031780593 = product of:
      0.063561186 = sum of:
        0.063561186 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063561186 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 4739, 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=4739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To examine the degree of exact and partial match between the assigned descriptors and title keywords of medical theses written in Farsi and submitted for a PhD degree.Design/methodology/approach - A sample population of 506 theses in Pediatrics, Gynecology, Cardiology and Psychiatry was randomly picked out of a total of 909 indexed in the Indexing Department of the Central Library of the Iran University of Medical Science and Health Care Services. The results obtained are compared with those reported for other documents written in Farsi and English. Where applicable, the influence of the foreign language and its structure is commented on.Findings - It is shown that the degree of match between the assigned descriptors and the title keywords is greater than 70 per cent, equaling those reported for Farsi books and Michigan University Library catalogue in USA. It is also shown that the frequency of the match has increased since 1982, indicating that the authors have become more attentive in their choice of title.Research limitations/implications - Detailed analysis of results, however, shows significant differences between the degree of exact match amongst the four categories, with psychiatry theses that use more common terms showing highest exact match findings (50 per cent).Originality/value - This paper highlights the need for a closer collaboration with medical institutions for definition of approved terms and their incorporation in indexation in order to improve findings in various medical categories.

0.10886009 = product of:
  0.16329013 = sum of:
    0.14326918 = weight(_text_:title in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14326918 = score(doc=130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.52218914 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
    0.020020949 = product of:
      0.040041897 = sum of:
        0.040041897 = weight(_text_:22 in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040041897 = score(doc=130,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 130, 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=130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A solid theoretical foundation has been built over the years exploring the bibliographic work and developing cataloging rules and practices to describe the work in the traditional catalog. With the increasing prevalence of multiple manifestations of serial titles, as well as tools that automate discovery and retrieval, bibliographic control of serials at a higher level of abstraction is more necessary than ever before. At the same time, models such as the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions' Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records offer new opportunities to control all bibliographic entities at this higher level and build more useful catalog displays. The bibliographic mechanisms that control the work for monographs - author, title, and uniform title - are weak identifiers for serials. New identifiers being adopted by the content industry are built on models and practices that are fundamentally different from those underlying the new bibliographic models. What is needed is a work identifier for serials that is both congruent with the new models and can enable us to meet the objective of providing work-level access to all resources in our catalogs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.10860509 = product of:
  0.16290763 = sum of:
    0.1462235 = weight(_text_:title in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1462235 = score(doc=5784,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.5329571 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
    0.016684124 = product of:
      0.03336825 = sum of:
        0.03336825 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03336825 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.10845592 = product of:
  0.16268387 = sum of:
    0.11819105 = weight(_text_:title in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11819105 = score(doc=793,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.43078408 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
    0.04449283 = product of:
      0.08898566 = sum of:
        0.08898566 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898566 = score(doc=793,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 793, 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=793)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

While directions for the use of "germane terms for the physical medium of the work" appeared in the 1964 Rules for Descriptive Cataloging in the Library of Congress: Phonorecords, most libraries choosing to integrate nonbook materials in their collections, either colour-coded their catalogue cards, or added two-digit media codes to call numbers. The first formalized list of "general material designations" (gmds) - placed immediately following the title proper as an early warning device - was published in 1978 in the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. Since their introduction they have been controversial as this investigation of the evolution of material designations explores.

0.09436589 = product of:
  0.14154883 = sum of:
    0.11819105 = weight(_text_:title in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11819105 = score(doc=129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.43078408 = fieldWeight in 129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=129)
    0.023357773 = product of:
      0.046715546 = sum of:
        0.046715546 = weight(_text_:22 in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046715546 = score(doc=129,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 129, 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=129)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Papers on the cataloging of electronic resources have focused on electronic journals and Internet resources such as Web sites and not on electronic books. Electronic books are nonserial monographic resources accessed with a computer either directly or remotely. Rules and standards for cataloging electronic resources have changed and continue to change. This article discusses the electronic book as a unique manifestation and provides practical instruction on the application of current cataloging rules. The cataloging elements covered are control fields and variable data fields, including classification, uniform titles, title information, edition information, type and extent of the resource, publication and distribution information, physical description, series statements, notes, and subject analysis.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.09296223 = product of:
  0.13944334 = sum of:
    0.10130662 = weight(_text_:title in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10130662 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3692435 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
    0.038136713 = product of:
      0.07627343 = sum of:
        0.07627343 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07627343 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 2193, 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=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

From a logical point of view, an OPAC is an inventory with indexes. Inventories can be accumulated and the indexes merged. However, in most merged catalogues not all documents have the same subject indexing and a number of documents are indexed by more than one system. In practice, a merged catalogue also contains descriptions without subject indexing. To augment the situation four methods are used: searching with title keywords, mapping and switching, acceptance of descriptions indexed in a given way only, and »citation pearl growing«. The last method uses all available subject indicators by using subject indicators present in relevant descriptions found by already known indicators. This method can also be of help in mapping and switching.

0.090050325 = product of:
  0.27015096 = sum of:
    0.27015096 = weight(_text_:title in 558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27015096 = score(doc=558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.9846493 = fieldWeight in 558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=558)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.090050325 = product of:
  0.27015096 = sum of:
    0.27015096 = weight(_text_:title in 4296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27015096 = score(doc=4296,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.9846493 = fieldWeight in 4296, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4296)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This experiment searches an online library catalog employing author surnames, plus title words of books in citations of 8 scholarly works whose authors selected the title words used as being recallable. Searches comprising surname together with two recallable title words, or one if only one was available, yielded a single-screen miniature catalog (minicat) 99.0% of the time

0.080885045 = product of:
  0.121327564 = sum of:
    0.10130662 = weight(_text_:title in 161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10130662 = score(doc=161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3692435 = fieldWeight in 161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=161)
    0.020020949 = product of:
      0.040041897 = sum of:
        0.040041897 = weight(_text_:22 in 161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040041897 = score(doc=161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 161, 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=161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article describes the use of the World Wide Web as a valuable name authority resource and tool for special collections analytic-level cataloging and the specific goal of fully discovering the names of people who lived in the past as well as those from the present. Current tools and initiatives such as the Name Authority Component of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (NACO) and the Library of Congress Name Authority File have a specific mission and are partially helpful. Web resources encompassing special collections are often intricate and require global and enhanced resources to continue what have been the guiding principles, tradition, and value of cataloging: to discover works via many points of entry; to find works by or about the same person, topic, or title; and to continue the great cataloging legacies of standards and cooperation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.080885045 = product of:
  0.121327564 = sum of:
    0.10130662 = weight(_text_:title in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10130662 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3692435 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.020020949 = product of:
      0.040041897 = sum of:
        0.040041897 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040041897 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.077468514 = product of:
  0.116202764 = sum of:
    0.08442217 = weight(_text_:title in 5686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08442217 = score(doc=5686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3077029 = fieldWeight in 5686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5686)
    0.031780593 = product of:
      0.063561186 = sum of:
        0.063561186 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 5686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063561186 = score(doc=5686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 5686, 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=5686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Music is a global and independent language: its main feature is being performed and disseminated far beyond national boundaries. The cataloguing process takes into account all kinds of documents preserving music and information about musical events: printed and manuscript music, sound recordings, librettos and concert programs, music periodicals, books on music. International repertories, reference tools, and standards have developed by the mid-20th century. Authority control for music materials focuses on two different groups of problems: common access points like names have to fulfil specific needs, and terms identifying and giving access to the musical content such as the uniform title have to be introduced and controlled. Several issues concerning names need to be faced, varying from the different writings of the same name, to transliteration, to attribution and disambiguation. Specific issues concern music materials: access through generic titles such as "sonata" is often frustrating. There is thus the need to create controlled access points through content-related data such as medium of performance, musical form, thematic catalogue number, music incipit. Since 1951, the International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Music Documentation Centers has faced issues of authority control promoting the publication of an international cataloguing code, specific working groups (on the structure for uniform titles, on UNIMARC, on exchange of authority data, on indexing of music performances) and international cataloguing projects.

0.077468514 = product of:
  0.116202764 = sum of:
    0.08442217 = weight(_text_:title in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08442217 = score(doc=5857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3077029 = fieldWeight in 5857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5857)
    0.031780593 = product of:
      0.063561186 = sum of:
        0.063561186 = weight(_text_:catalogue in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063561186 = score(doc=5857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23806341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 5857, 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=5857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.06753775 = product of:
  0.20261323 = sum of:
    0.20261323 = weight(_text_:title in 2166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20261323 = score(doc=2166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.738487 = fieldWeight in 2166, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2166)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 2004, the German National Library began to classify title records of the German National Bibliography according to subject groups based on the divisions of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Since 2006, all titles of the main series of the German National Bibliography are classified in strict compliance with the DDC. On this basis, an enhanced DDC-based search can be realized - e.g., searching the data of the German National Bibliography for title records using number components of synthesized classification numbers or searching for DDC numbers using unclassified title records. This paper gives an account of the current research and development of the DDC-based search. The work is conducted in the VZG project Colibri that focuses on the automatic analysis of DDC-synthesized numbers and the automatic classification of bibliographic title records.