Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017614061 = product of:
  0.05284218 = sum of:
    0.05284218 = product of:
      0.15852654 = sum of:
        0.15852654 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15852654 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42309996 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

0.010779679 = product of:
  0.032339036 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=894,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 894, 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=894)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Catalogues date back to the libraries of Babylon and Alexandria, and in the Middle Ages groups of colleges and monasteries created joint catalogues. The dream of universal bibliographic control based on a centralised joint catalogue advanced when the US Library of Congress began selling bibliographic records in 1901. This led to MARC in 1969, and increasing emphasis on standardisation resulted in the first ISBN in 1974

Content

Presentation given at a French Association study day on 'The future of cataloging / Catalogues of the future', held in June 1996 at the BNF

0.010779679 = product of:
  0.032339036 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=5574,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 5574, 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=5574)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The use of computerized cataloguing data requires a commitment on the part of libraries to the standardization of data elements and record formats. Early computerized formats were initiated by several research libraries to serve the needs of particular university systems. In developing MARC, the LoC drew on the experiences of these libraries in establishing a standard acceptable to the research library community for the interchange of bibliographic data. Discusses early computerized formats influencing MARC, the origins of the MARC Pilot Project, and design factors influencing the evolution of the format through MARC2. Research was based on primary sources documenting the early history of MARC, including unpublished documents in the LoC archives

0.010779679 = product of:
  0.032339036 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=756,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 756, 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=756)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Explores the confusion between main entry and main entry heading and attempts to finally lay the ghost to rest by shifting the emphasis onto the problem of work authority - the problem with which the theory of main entry is actually concerned. Concentrating on the second function of the catalogue as defined in the "Paris principles" of 1961, the paper examines various contributions on main entry including those delivered at the Toronto conference on AACR in 1997. Proposes the establishment of a global work authority file in which each individual work is primarily identified by a modified version of the uniform title, a departure which would restore the title (as opposed to the author) as principal identifier of the work.

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 7379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=7379,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 7379, 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=7379)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The traditional library and information science (LIS) curriculum for organization of information assumes a cataloging paradigm that is built on the concepts and theories developed throughout the history of library cataloging as well as practical knowledge and skills of applying current standards and systems developed specifically for practice in cataloging. Advocates for LIS curriculum reform point out, however, that this cataloging paradigm must be replaced by knowledge of resources and systems management in order to equip LIS graduates with the knowledge and skills needed for an information society. By comparing the traditional and nontraditional curricula in the area of organization of information, this paper proposes a paradigm for organization of information in which information is defined in the context of five attributes and cataloging is perceived as a mode of organizational behavior. Some implications of this paradigm on the core curriculum for organization of information are suggested

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3706, 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=3706)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines the evolution of cataloguing tools, standards and general finding aids in ancient libraries with reference to Mesopotamian libraries, Egyptian libraries and Greek libraries. Focuses on the library of King Asurbanipal and the Great Library of Alexandria and looks at the work of Callimachus and his Pikankes

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=506,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 506, 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=506)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper identifies the text of Dr. Andrew Osborn's 1941 "The Crisis in Cataloging" as a place where a shift in the shared set of assumptions governing cataloging rules and practices occurs. Cataloging from 1930-1942 was in a state of change and confusion. Existing guidelines of 1908 Cataloging Rules, the draft being revised which was to become the 1941 Anglo-American Code, and Library of Congress cards and practices all proved to contribute to the difficulties in cataloging rather than remedy them. Dr. Osborn functioned as a "gatekeeper" who understood and integrated the available intellectual discourse on American Pragmatism and introduces it to Librarianship. "The Crisis in Cataloging" articulates what the theoretical presuppositions are of the then-available guidelines, and explains the erros of their consequences. It is possible to identify in "Crisis" the introduction of four specific conceptual changes which become a part of the discourse and shared assumptions of cataloging. Each concept is shown to be possible because of ideas, values, and ways of thinking introduced by the philosophy of American Pragmatism.