Search (177 results, page 1 of 9)

0.04067147 = product of:
  0.061007205 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=2592,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In June 2009, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group established the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control to address recommendation 5.1.1.1 of On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which focused on developing measures for costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic control. This paper outlines results of that task force's efforts to develop and articulate metrics for evaluating the cost and value of cataloging activities specifically, and offers some next steps that the community could take to further the profession's collective understanding of the costs and values associated with bibliographic control.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.033380013 = product of:
  0.050070018 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=2546,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 2546, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2546)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As we move toward implementing RDA: Resource Description and Access, I have been pondering how we might manage the transition to new cataloging rules effectively. I was a practicing cataloger when Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., was implemented and remember it as a traumatic process. The published literature that I found focused on the impact of the then-new rules on specific formats and genres, but no one seems to have addressed the process of implementation and what type of training worked well (or did not). After a bit of sleuthing, I found a pertinent presentation by Arlene G. Taylor, which she graciously agreed to repurpose as this guest editorial.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.028611436 = product of:
  0.042917155 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=2608,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2608, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2608)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper surveys the English-language literature on cataloging and classification published during 2011 and 2012, covering both theory and application. A major theme of the literature centered on Resource Description and Access (RDA), as the period covered in this review includes the conclusion of the RDA test, revisions to RDA, and the implementation decision. Explorations in the theory and practical applications of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), upon which RDA is organized, are also heavily represented. Library involvement with linked data through the creation of prototypes and vocabularies are explored further during the period. Other areas covered in the review include: classification, controlled vocabularies and name authority, evaluation and history of cataloging, special formats cataloging, cataloging and discovery services, non-AACR2/RDA metadata, cataloging workflows, and the education and careers of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.028611436 = product of:
  0.042917155 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=2946,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.

Date

17. 5.2016 19:22:40

0.02822417 = product of:
  0.042336255 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02822417 = product of:
  0.042336255 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2609, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2609)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2609, 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=2609)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a research study, a survey of library and information science master's degree holders who have taken a beginning cataloging course, to identify the elements of a beginning cataloging course that help students to learn cataloging concepts and skills. The results suggest that cataloging practice (the hands-on creation of bibliographic records or catalog cards), the effectiveness of the instructor, a balance of theory and practice, and placing cataloging in a real-world context contribute to effective learning. However, more research is needed to determine how, and to what the extent, each element should be incorporated into beginning cataloging courses.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.026668733 = product of:
  0.0400031 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=1903,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1903, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1903)
    0.01690379 = product of:
      0.03380758 = sum of:
        0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03380758 = score(doc=1903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1903, 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=1903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Teaching cataloguing requires the instructor to make strategic decisions about how to approach the variety and complexity of the field and to provide an adequate theoretical foundation while preparing students for their entry into the world of practice. Accompanying these challenges are the tactical demands of providing this instruction in a distance education environment. Rather than focusing on ways to support learners in catalogue record production, instructors may use a problem solving and decision making approach to instruction. In this paper, a way to conceptualize a decision making approach that builds on a foundation provided by theories of information navigation is described. This approach, which is called "wayfinding", teaches by having students learn to find their way in the sets of rules that are commonly used. The method focuses on instruction about the structural features of rule sets, providing basic definitions of what each of the "places" in the rule sets contain (e.g., "formatting personal names" in Chapter 22 of AACR2R) and about ways to navigate those structures, enabling students to learn not only about common rules but also about less well known cataloguing practices ("dragons"). It provides both pragmatic and pedagogical benefits and helps develop links between cataloguing practices and their theoretical foundations.

0.024192145 = product of:
  0.036288217 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.024192145 = product of:
  0.036288217 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=2604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2604)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2604, 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=2604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Among the many issues associated with integrating e-books into library collections and services, the revision of existing workflows in cataloging units has received little attention. The experience designing new workflows for e-books at Oregon State University Libraries since 2008 is described in detail from the perspective of three different sources of e-books. These descriptions highlight where the workflows applied to each vendor's stream differ. A workflow was developed for each vendor, based on the quality and source of available bibliographic records and the staff member performing the task. Involving cataloging staff as early as possible in the process of purchasing e-books from a new vendor ensures that a suitable workflow can be designed and implemented as soon as possible. This ensures that the representation of e-books in the library catalog is not delayed, increasing the likelihood that users will readily find and use these resources that the library has purchased.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.024192145 = product of:
  0.036288217 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2610, 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=2610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Aggregates have been a frequent topic of discussion between library science researchers. This study seeks to better understand aggregates through the analysis of a sample of bibliographic records and review of the cataloging treatment of aggregates. The study focuses on determining how common aggregates are in library collections, what types of aggregates exist, how aggregates are described in bibliographic records, and the criteria for identifying aggregates from the information in bibliographic records. A sample of bibliographic records representing textual resources was taken from OCLC's WorldCat database. More than 20 percent of the sampled records represented aggregates and more works were embodied in aggregates than were embodied in single work manifestations. A variety of issues, including cataloging practices and the varying definitions of aggregates, made it difficult to accurately identify and quantify the presence of aggregates using only the information from bibliographic records.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.021451002 = product of:
  0.064353004 = sum of:
    0.064353004 = product of:
      0.12870601 = sum of:
        0.12870601 = weight(_text_:demand in 1332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12870601 = score(doc=1332,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.4134786 = fieldWeight in 1332, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1332)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considering the expansion of research output across the globe, along with the growing demand for quantitative tracking of research outcomes by government authorities and research institutions, the challenges of author identity are increasing. In recent years, a number of initiatives to help solve the author "name game" have been launched from all areas of the scholarly information market space. This article introduces the various author identification tools and services Thomson Reuters provides, including Distinct Author Sets and ResearcherID-which reflect a combination of automated clustering and author participation-as well as the use of other data types, such as grants and patents, to expand the universe of author identification. Industry-wide initiatives such as the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) are also described. Future author-related developments in ResearcherID and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge are also included.

0.020160122 = product of:
  0.030240182 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2937)
    0.01690379 = product of:
      0.03380758 = sum of:
        0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 2937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03380758 = score(doc=2937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2937, 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=2937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In authorship attribution, various distance-based metrics have been proposed to determine the most probable author of a disputed text. In this paradigm, a distance is computed between each author profile and the query text. These values are then employed only to rank the possible authors. In this article, we analyze their distribution and show that we can model it as a mixture of 2 Beta distributions. Based on this finding, we demonstrate how we can derive a more accurate probability that the closest author is, in fact, the real author. To evaluate this approach, we have chosen 4 authorship attribution methods (Burrows' Delta, Kullback-Leibler divergence, Labbé's intertextual distance, and the naïve Bayes). As the first test collection, we have downloaded 224 State of the Union addresses (from 1790 to 2014) delivered by 41 U.S. presidents. The second test collection is formed by the Federalist Papers. The evaluations indicate that the accuracy rate of some authorship decisions can be improved. The suggested method can signal that the proposed assignment should be interpreted as possible, without strong certainty. Being able to quantify the certainty associated with an authorship decision can be a useful component when important decisions must be taken.

Date

7. 5.2016 21:22:27

0.015088407 = product of:
  0.04526522 = sum of:
    0.04526522 = weight(_text_:on in 2625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04526522 = score(doc=2625,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.4123903 = fieldWeight in 2625, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2625)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The article aims to provide an update on the 2009 Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) and on the status of work on the Statement by the IFLA Cataloguing Section. The article begins with a summary of the drafting process of the ICP by the IME ICC, International Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, focusing in particular on the first meeting (IME ICC1) and on the earlier drafts of the 2009 Statement. It then analyzes both the major innovations and the unsatisfactory aspects of the ICP. Finally, it explains and comments on the recent documents by the IFLA Cataloguing Section relating to the ICP, which express their intention to revise the Statement and to verify the convenience of drawing up an international cataloguing code. The latter intention is considered in detail and criticized by the author in the light of the recent publication of the RDA, Resource Description and Access. The article is complemented by an updated bibliography on the ICP.

0.012319634 = product of:
  0.0369589 = sum of:
    0.0369589 = weight(_text_:on in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0369589 = score(doc=2944,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This issue of Jlis.it is focused on RDA, Resource Description and Access. In light of increasing international acceptance of this new cataloging content standard, the editors of Jlis.it wish to capture the background of how RDA came to be and the implications of its implementation at this time. This special issue offers a wide overview on the new guidelines from their making to their spreading around the world.

0.011928434 = product of:
  0.0357853 = sum of:
    0.0357853 = weight(_text_:on in 1885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0357853 = score(doc=1885,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.32602316 = fieldWeight in 1885, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1885)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This case study on cataloging notated music focuses on music presentation format, and the use of controlled vocabularies in a multilingual context, when concepts do not have corresponding terms in one or more languages, and when common language terms are mixed with technical terms in a specialized context. Issues concern the terminological correspondence among different languages, and the consequent risks if only one language is taken into account or the meaning of one word is arbitrarily altered; English linguistic pragmatism may lead to wrong conceptual results when it points directly to the result of a process, while other languages focus on the process needed to obtain that result. Considerations on the use of codes in MARC formats and on how music presentation is treated in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) are included, and numerous illustrated examples, understandable even by non-music experts, support the article.

0.0108891195 = product of:
  0.032667357 = sum of:
    0.032667357 = weight(_text_:on in 4676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032667357 = score(doc=4676,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29761705 = fieldWeight in 4676, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4676)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Authorship attribution is an important problem in text classification, with many applications and a substantial body of research activity. Among the research findings are that many different methods will work, including a number of methods that are superficially language-independent (such as an analysis of the most common "words" or "character n-grams" in a document). Since all languages have words (and all written languages have characters), this method could (in theory) work on any language. However, it is not clear that the methods that work best on, for example English, would also work best on other languages. It is not even clear that the same level of performance is achievable in different languages, even under identical conditions. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to achieve "identical conditions" in practice. A new corpus, developed by George Mikros, provides very tight controls not only for author but also for topic, thus enabling a direct comparison of performance levels between the two languages Greek and English. We compare a number of different methods head-to-head on this corpus, and show that, overall, performance on English is higher than performance on Greek, often highly significantly so.

0.010779679 = product of:
  0.032339036 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 1990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=1990,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 1990, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1990)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on a joint translation project (France and Canada) of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard into French. We describe how the translation committee worked, explain the methodology, and present the measures taken to ensure that all contributing parties be satisfied with the end result. The article discusses problems that arose when dealing with translating specific instructions and examples that needed to be adapted (or changed) to the French context. Other sections report on technical and managerial challenges encountered. We conclude with "lessons learned" that will hopefully help others embarking on such a project.

0.010779679 = product of:
  0.032339036 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 2628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=2628,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 2628, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2628)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The traditional work-instance model differentiates between the intellectual content of a work and the semantic content of its material instantiations. Most scholarship on musical works has concentrated on classical music within the Western canon, and little attention has been paid to other genres of music. This article explores what would constitute an effective work-instance model applicable to sound recordings of non-classical music, examines the shortcomings of the standard work-instance model, and offers new perspectives on the idea of the musical work by integrating the views of philosophers and musicologists, suggesting an interdisciplinary approach to the knowledge organization of musical works.

0.010779679 = product of:
  0.032339036 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 5121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=5121,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 5121, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5121)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Resource Description and Access (RDA) provides a system of instructions for recording relationships between resources by means of a controlled vocabulary of relationship designators. This article examines the system and a selection of relationship designators, focusing especially on whether the designators are defined in operationally satisfactory ways. The designators are compared to corresponding categories in literary theorist Gérard Genette's taxonomy of intertextual relationships. The analysis shows that although some of the selected designators are satisfactorily operationalized, most are not. A fundamental problem is that the emphasis is on how to record machine-readable data, not on how this data reflects reality.

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 1927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=1927,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 1927, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1927)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study aims to find a method to change Korean bibliographic records into the FRBR structure. It also intends to verify that this conversion is possible without main entry or uniform headings because there is no rule for choice and form of the main headings in the current Korean Cataloging Rules. In this paper, we reviewed the role of identifiers and role indicators for FRBRizing. Also, we analysed the characteristics of the Korean cataloging environment, focusing on the bibliographic records and authority records based on the current cataloging rules. As a result, we suggested the methodology for FRBRizing Korean bibliographical records by the combination of identifiers and role indicators. Although there is not much information about global identifiers or relator codes in bibliographic records based on the KORMARC at present, the FRBRizing method using identifiers and role indicators would be more effective for the global and networked information environment than the method using main entry or uniform headings.