Search (138 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Martin, S.K.: ¬The union catalogue : summary and future directions (1982) 0.05
    0.04838429 = product of:
      0.07257643 = sum of:
        0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032007344 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
        0.040569093 = product of:
          0.081138186 = sum of:
            0.081138186 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.081138186 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Date
    6. 1.2007 14:49:22
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as The Future of the Union Catalogue: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Future of the Union Catalogue
  2. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.05
    0.04838429 = product of:
      0.07257643 = sum of:
        0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032007344 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
        0.040569093 = product of:
          0.081138186 = sum of:
            0.081138186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.081138186 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  3. Cathro, W.: New frameworks for resource discovery and delivery : the changing role of the catalogue (2006) 0.05
    0.04832534 = product of:
      0.07248801 = sum of:
        0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01886051 = score(doc=6107,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
        0.053627502 = product of:
          0.107255004 = sum of:
            0.107255004 = weight(_text_:demand in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.107255004 = score(doc=6107,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.3445655 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    There is currently a lively debate about the role of the library catalogue and its relationship to other resource discovery tools. An example of this debate is the recent publication of a report commissioned by the Library of Congress on "the changing nature of the catalogue" As part of this debate, the role of union catalogues is also being re-examined. Some commentators have suggested that union catalogues, by virtue of their size, can aggregate both supply and demand, thus increasing the chance that a relatively little-used resource will be discovered by somebody for whom it is relevant. During the past year, the National Library of Australia (NLA) has been considering the future of its catalogue and its role in the resource discovery and delivery process. The review was prompted, in part, by the redevelopment of the Australian union catalogue and its exposure on the web as a free public service, badged as Libraries Australia. The NLA examined the enablers and inhibitors to proposition "that it replace its catalogue with Libraries Australia, as the primary database to be searched by users". Flowing from this review, the NLA is aiming to undertake a number of tasks to move in the medium to long term towards a scenario in which it could deprecate its local catalogue. Bezug zum Calhoun-Report
  4. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.05
    0.047685735 = product of:
      0.0715286 = sum of:
        0.03772102 = weight(_text_:on in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03772102 = score(doc=4608,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.3436586 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
        0.03380758 = product of:
          0.06761516 = sum of:
            0.06761516 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06761516 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale": papers from the ALCTS preconference, June 26, 1998 "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale". ALCTS Preconference, Washington, D.C.
  5. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.04
    0.03965692 = product of:
      0.059485376 = sum of:
        0.03920083 = weight(_text_:on in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03920083 = score(doc=54,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.35714048 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
        0.020284547 = product of:
          0.040569093 = sum of:
            0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040569093 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, 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=54)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
    Source
    Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari
  6. Hillmann, D.I.: "Parallel universes" or meaningful relationships : envisioning a future for the OPAC and the net (1996) 0.03
    0.032256197 = product of:
      0.048384294 = sum of:
        0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338228 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
        0.027046064 = product of:
          0.054092128 = sum of:
            0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054092128 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Over the past year, innumerable discussions on the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the newly burgeoning World WideWeb have occured in many libraries and in virtually every library related discussion list. Rumors and speculation abound, some insisting that SGML will replace USMARC "soon," others maintaining that OPACs that haven't migrated to the Web will go the way of the dinosaurs.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103
  7. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.03
    0.032256197 = product of:
      0.048384294 = sum of:
        0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338228 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
        0.027046064 = product of:
          0.054092128 = sum of:
            0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054092128 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  8. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.03
    0.032256197 = product of:
      0.048384294 = sum of:
        0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338228 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
        0.027046064 = product of:
          0.054092128 = sum of:
            0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054092128 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.03
    0.029793572 = product of:
      0.044690356 = sum of:
        0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016003672 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
        0.028686684 = product of:
          0.057373367 = sum of:
            0.057373367 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.057373367 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
  10. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.03
    0.02822417 = product of:
      0.042336255 = sum of:
        0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01867095 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
        0.023665305 = product of:
          0.04733061 = sum of:
            0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04733061 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = 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.
  11. Randall, N.B.: Spelling errors in the database : shadow or substance? (1999) 0.03
    0.02822417 = product of:
      0.042336255 = sum of:
        0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01867095 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
        0.023665305 = product of:
          0.04733061 = sum of:
            0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04733061 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  12. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.03
    0.026668733 = product of:
      0.0400031 = sum of:
        0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02309931 = score(doc=190,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
        0.01690379 = product of:
          0.03380758 = sum of:
            0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03380758 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale": papers from the ALCTS preconference, June 26, 1998 "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale". ALCTS Preconference, Washington, D.C.
  13. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.02
    0.024192145 = product of:
      0.036288217 = sum of:
        0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016003672 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
        0.020284547 = product of:
          0.040569093 = sum of:
            0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040569093 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = 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
  14. Condron, L.: Management by action : how we're embracing new cataloging work at Tufts (2001) 0.02
    0.021451002 = product of:
      0.064353004 = sum of:
        0.064353004 = product of:
          0.12870601 = sum of:
            0.12870601 = weight(_text_:demand in 5430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.12870601 = score(doc=5430,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.4134786 = fieldWeight in 5430, 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=5430)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.
  15. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.02
    0.021334989 = product of:
      0.032002483 = sum of:
        0.01847945 = weight(_text_:on in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01847945 = score(doc=2666,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.16835764 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
        0.013523032 = product of:
          0.027046064 = sum of:
            0.027046064 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027046064 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  16. Stoker, D.: Computer cataloguing in retrospect (1997) 0.02
    0.020160122 = product of:
      0.030240182 = sum of:
        0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013336393 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
        0.01690379 = product of:
          0.03380758 = sum of:
            0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03380758 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
  17. Leazer, G.H.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Bibliographic families in the library catalog : a qualitative analysis and grounded theory (1999) 0.02
    0.020160122 = product of:
      0.030240182 = sum of:
        0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013336393 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
        0.01690379 = product of:
          0.03380758 = sum of:
            0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03380758 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Forty-five years have passed since Lubetzky outlined the primary objectives of the catalog, which should facilitate the identification of specific bibliographic entities, and the explicit recoguition of works and relationships amongthem. Still, our catalogs are better designed to identify specific bibliographic entities than they are to guide users among the network of potential related editions and translations of works. In this paper, we seck to examine qualitatively some interesting examples of families of related works, defined as bibliographic families. Although the cases described here were derived from a random sample, this is a qualitative analysis. We selected these bibliographic families for their ability to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of Leazer's model, which incorporates relationship taxonomies by Tillett and Smiraglia Qualitatice analysis is intended to produce on explanation of a phenomenou, particularly an identification of any palterns observed. Patterns observed in qualitative analysis can be used to affirm external observations of the same phenomena; conclusions can contribute to what is knoton as grounded theory-a unique explanation grounded in the phenomenon under study. We arrive at two statements of grounded theory concerning bibliographic families: cataloger-generated implicit maps among works are inadequate, and qualitative analysis suggests the complexity of even the smallest bibliographic families. We conclude that user behavior study is needed to suggest which alternative maps are preferable.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Homan, P.A.: Library catalog notes for "bad books" : ethics vs. responsibilities (2012) 0.02
    0.020160122 = product of:
      0.030240182 = sum of:
        0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013336393 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
        0.01690379 = product of:
          0.03380758 = sum of:
            0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03380758 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Content
    Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_f.pdf.
    Date
    27. 9.2012 14:22:00
  19. Hafter, R.: ¬The performance of card catalogs : a review of research (1979) 0.02
    0.01803071 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = product of:
          0.108184256 = sum of:
            0.108184256 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.108184256 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    3.10.2000 20:48:22
  20. Tennant, R.: ¬The print perplex : building the future catalog (1998) 0.02
    0.01803071 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = product of:
          0.108184256 = sum of:
            0.108184256 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.108184256 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

Authors

Languages

  • e 114
  • d 14
  • a 2
  • f 2
  • sp 2
  • chi 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 119
  • el 15
  • m 8
  • r 4
  • s 4
  • b 3
  • More… Less…