Search (6333 results, page 1 of 317)

0.22144768 = sum of:
  0.07239475 = product of:
    0.21718425 = sum of:
      0.21718425 = weight(_text_:objects in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21718425 = score(doc=2341,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.6643839 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14905292 = sum of:
    0.08238986 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08238986 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.06666305 = weight(_text_:22 in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06666305 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2341, 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=2341)

Abstract

IODyone is an Internet client program that allows one to retriev information from servers by dynamically combining information objects. Information objects are abstract representations of bibliographic data, typically titles (or title keywords), author names, subject and classification identifiers, and full-text search terms

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.21304432 = sum of:
  0.045246717 = product of:
    0.13574015 = sum of:
      0.13574015 = weight(_text_:objects in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13574015 = score(doc=187,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1677976 = sum of:
    0.12613319 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12613319 = score(doc=187,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.52679294 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
    0.041664407 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041664407 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)

Abstract

The formal charge for the IFLA study involving international bibliography standards was to delineate the functions that are performed by the bibliographic record with respect to various media, applications, and user needs. The method used was the entity relationship analysis technique. Three groups of entities that are the key objects of interest to users of bibliographic records were defined. The primary group contains four entities: work, expression, manifestation, and item. The second group includes entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, production, or ownership of entities in the first group. The third group includes entities that represent concepts, objects, events, and places. In the study we identified the attributes associated with each entity and the relationships that are most important to users. The attributes and relationships were mapped to the functional requirements for bibliographic records that were defined in terms of four user tasks: to find, identify, select, and obtain. Basic requirements for national bibliographic records were recommended based on the entity analysis. The recommendations of the study are compared with two standards, AACR (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) and the Dublin Core, to place them into pragmatic context. The results of the study are being used in the review of the complete set of ISBDs as the initial benchmark in determining data elements for each format.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.20507438 = sum of:
  0.044791963 = product of:
    0.13437589 = sum of:
      0.13437589 = weight(_text_:objects in 597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13437589 = score(doc=597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=597)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16028242 = sum of:
    0.101952255 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101952255 = score(doc=597,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 597, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=597)
    0.058330167 = weight(_text_:22 in 597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058330167 = score(doc=597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 597, 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=597)

Abstract

This paper considers the relevance of Charles Ami Cutter's principles of bibliographic access to the uiniverse of Internet accessible digital objects and explores new methods for applying these principles in the context of new information technologies. The paper examines the value for retrieval of collecting authors' names, identifying authors' roles, collocating works and versions, and providing subject access through classification and controlled vocabularies for digital resources available through the World Wide Web. THe authors identify emerging techniques and technologies that can be used in lieu of or as a supplement to traditional cataloging to achieve these functions in organizing access to Internet resources

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Electronic Resources: Selection and Bibliographic Control

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.25-42

0.16791847 = sum of:
  0.02559541 = product of:
    0.07678623 = sum of:
      0.07678623 = weight(_text_:objects in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07678623 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14232306 = sum of:
    0.10899154 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10899154 = score(doc=2647,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.45520115 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.033331525 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033331525 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)

Abstract

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

Content

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

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

0.15163864 = sum of:
  0.0633454 = product of:
    0.1900362 = sum of:
      0.1900362 = weight(_text_:objects in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1900362 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.08829324 = product of:
    0.17658648 = sum of:
      0.17658648 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17658648 = score(doc=343,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.73751014 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.

0.14905292 = product of:
  0.29810584 = sum of:
    0.29810584 = sum of:
      0.16477972 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16477972 = score(doc=3254,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 3254, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3254)
      0.1333261 = weight(_text_:22 in 3254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1333261 = score(doc=3254,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3254, 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=3254)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.59, [=Suppl.22]

0.14168371 = sum of:
  0.05429606 = product of:
    0.16288818 = sum of:
      0.16288818 = weight(_text_:objects in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16288818 = score(doc=2433,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.08738765 = product of:
    0.1747753 = sum of:
      0.1747753 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1747753 = score(doc=2433,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.7299458 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The goal of OCLC's FRBR projects is to examine issues associated with the conversion of a set of bibliographic records to conform to FRBR requirements (a process referred to as "FRBRization"). The goals of this FRBR project were to: - examine issues associated with creating an entity-relationship model for (i.e., "FRBRizing") a non-trivial work - better understand the relationship between the bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic record is sufficient to reliably identify the FRBR entities - to develop a data set that could be used to evaluate FRBRization algorithms. Using an exemplary work as a case study, lead scientist Ed O'Neill sought to: - better understand the relationship between bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic records is sufficient to reliably identify FRBR entities.

0.13738494 = product of:
  0.27476987 = sum of:
    0.27476987 = sum of:
      0.1747753 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1747753 = score(doc=4206,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.7299458 = fieldWeight in 4206, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4206)
      0.09999457 = weight(_text_:22 in 4206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09999457 = score(doc=4206,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4206, 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=4206)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Siehe auch unter: Electronic resources: selection and bibliographic control. Ed.: Pattie, L.-Y.W. u. B.J. Cox. New York: Haworth 1996.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.1-238

0.1349816 = sum of:
  0.03199426 = product of:
    0.09598278 = sum of:
      0.09598278 = weight(_text_:objects in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09598278 = score(doc=3033,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.102987334 = product of:
    0.20597467 = sum of:
      0.20597467 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20597467 = score(doc=3033,freq=32.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.86024934 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
            5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
              32.0 = termFreq=32.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper I describe a conceptual design of a bibliographic retrieval system that enables more thourough control of bibliographic entities. A bibliographic entity has 2 components: the intellectual work and the physical item. Users searching bibliographic retrieval systems generally do not search for a specific item, but are willing to retrieve one of several alternative manifestations of a work. However, contemporary bibliographic retrieval systems are based solely on the descriptions of items. Works are described only implcitly by collocating descriptions of items. This method has resulted in a tool that does not include important descriptive attributes of the work, e.g. information regarding its history, its genre, or its bibliographic relationships. A bibliographic relationship is an association between 2 bibliographic entities. A system evaluation methodology wasused to create a conceptual schema for a bibliographic retrieval system. The model is based upon an analysis of data elements in the USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. The conceptual schema describes a database comprising 2 separate files of bibliographic descriptions, one of works and the other of items. Each file consists of individual descriptive surrogates of their respective entities. the specific data content of each file is defined by a data dictionary. Data elements used in the description of bibliographic works reflect the nature of works as intellectual and linguistic objects. The descriptive elements of bibliographic items describe the physical properties of bibliographic entities. Bibliographic relationships constitute the logical strucutre of the database

0.13423808 = product of:
  0.26847616 = sum of:
    0.26847616 = sum of:
      0.20181312 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20181312 = score(doc=4564,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.84286875 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
      0.06666305 = weight(_text_:22 in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06666305 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4564, 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=4564)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliographic relationships are one of the most active research areas in knowledge organization, especially in cataloguing. This study attempts to examine and map the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) bibliographic relationships with Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships, and to a ssess the congruence between them. The FRBR conceptual model provides a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships in chapter 5, illustrating them in 11 tables. This study shows that there is considerable congruence between these two taxonomies.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:13:52

0.13266996 = sum of:
  0.028616538 = product of:
    0.08584961 = sum of:
      0.08584961 = weight(_text_:objects in 5580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08584961 = score(doc=5580,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.2626208 = fieldWeight in 5580, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5580)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.104053415 = sum of:
    0.08738765 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08738765 = score(doc=5580,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 5580, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5580)
    0.016665762 = weight(_text_:22 in 5580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016665762 = score(doc=5580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 5580, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5580)

Content

TAYLOR, A.G.: Introduction to the crisis; MIKSA, F.: Bibliographic control traditions and subject access in library catalogs; INTNER, S.: Subject access education: oxymoron or obligation? MANN, T.: Cataloging and reference work; GORMANN, M.: The cost and value of organized subject access

Footnote

Arlene G. Taylor, (University of Pittsburgh), in her talk "Introduction to the Crisis," stated that there has been an erosion of confidence in subject cataloging, which is frequently thought not to be cost-effective. Signs of the crisis are 1) an administrative push to cut back or eliminate subject cataloging, 2) lack of sufficient education in the theory and practice of subject analysis, leading to a lack of understanding on the part of non-catalogers, 3) a widespread negative view of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and 4) a view of classification as only a way of arranging items on a shelf, and therefore clearly dispensable in an age of online information. Reasons for the erosion of confidence are 1) the availability of keyword searching, which many people think is sufficient, 2) the difficulty of subject analysis in an expanding universe of knowledge--including the increasing variety of materials, and of different formats, not all of which are suitable for traditional subject analysis--increasing variation of word usage even in the same language, the appearance of new subjects requiring new terminology, and the use of multiple thesauri with little or no attempt to relate them to each other), and 3) the "since it can't be perfect" syndrome, i.e., since subject analysis is subjective anyway, so why bother? Francis Miksa, (University of Texas at Austin), spoke about "Bibliographic Control Traditions and Subject Access in Library Catalogs". Suggesting that we need a broader perspective, partly historical, and a new approach and methodology, he discussed 1) bibliographic control as a general model and the various traditions of bibliographic control, and 2) the measure of a single bibliographic item, and how much information about it belongs in an entry in a bibliographic control system. Bibliographic control is any attempt to gain power over the information-bearing objects which comprise the bibliographic universe. The universe of knowledge is intangible and ordered, and resides in information-bearing objects, while the bibliographic universe is tangible--being made up of objects--but unordered; bibliographic control consists of identifying and ordering bibliographic objects so that they can be retrieved and used to help people reach the universe of knowledge. The types of bibliographic control that have arisen are--in chronological order--1) bibliography, 2) library cataloging, 3) indexing and abstracting, 4) documentation and information storage and retrieval, 5) archival enterprises, and 6) records management. The nature of a single bibliographic unit--that is, the basis of an entry in a bibliographic organization system--differs among these traditions of practice: in archives, it is a collection from a single source, in records management a group of records, and in library cataloging it was originally one book containing one work by one author.
The first breakdown of this ideal was the appearance of information-bearing objects containing more than one work, such as transactions of learned societies, periodicals, etc.; the solution to this breakdown was analytical cataloging, and the result was the rise of indexing and documentation. The second breakdown, originating in indexing and abstracting, was the discovery that subject access is not limited to a work as a single bibliographic item, and that it is not simply concerned with "aboutness". The response to the second breakdown was the fragmentation of the concept of the unity of a work into the concept of the work as a conglomeration of topics, forms, and genres. Therefore, library cataloging is two breakdowns behind, and still operating with a simplistic view of a document as a unit. Thomas Mann, (Library of Congress), spoke about "Cataloging and Reference Work". His first topic was the continuing need for subject classification of books (i.e., for subject arrangement of books on shelves). He gave two examples of information that could be found only by taking books in a particular subject area off the shelves and looking through each one for the relevant information. The information exists in these books at the page and paragraph level, and this kind of searching could not be done if the books were not organized on the shelves by subject. Scholars, students, and journalists use this type of search quite often, but librarians generally ignore it or say that it is unimportant (partly because it can't be computerized, and some librarians think anything that can't be computerized is unimportant). The quality and level of research that can be done in libraries would be greatly diminished if this kind of searching became impossible. Mann's second topic was the importance of specific entry in a controlled vocabulary. Use of the most specific entry is being abandoned because of the increased use of copy cataloging; general headings are being accepted in place of specific ones, and this leads to disaster. The items are effectively lost, because one never knows where to stop with general headings (since all general headings are potentially applicable), whereas with a specific heading, one stops when one finds the heading that fits most closely with the subject one wants> If works dealing with this subject all had the specific heading, one could then be sure that one had found all the works in the library on this subject.
The third topic was that the crisis is mainly due to reference and bibliographic instruction librarians, who are not telling users how to use the retrieval systems created by catalogers. They should tell users about the red books, about the importance of Narrower Terms (NT, including those that are alphabetically adjacent to Broader Terms (BT) as these cannot be found in screen displays), about the usefulness of subject headings from records for relevant items located by author, title, or keyword for finding similar items. (Of course, this will not work if the headings are at the wrong level of specificity!); and about the subdivisions of subject headings. Some bibliographic instruction librarians are telling users not to use LCSH, so the users are missing many--sometimes most--of the relevant items. If the retrieval system is going to work, reference and bibliographic instruction librarians have to explain how subject headings work, rather than concealing or even disparaging them. Michael Gorman, (California State University--Fresno), talked about "The Cost and Value of Organized Subject Access," saying that systematic subject access is the key to effective use of libraries, and it is therefore both cost-effective and cost- beneficial, even though many administrators don't think so. But there are problems, both inherently and in application. Good subject access maximizes both recall and relevance. Specificity is extremely important; it best meets the needs of most users, because the cataloger has already differentiated the items. It is also extremely important that a verbal subject system have a syndetic structure, so that the user can explore broader, narrower, and related subjects. The time spent by the cataloger in creating subject headings should be inversely proportional to the time spent by the user on retrieval; the canon of service of our profession demands adding that value at the front end instead of shifting the burden to (infinite numbers of) users. Direct and indirect benefits to the user increase with the amount of time spent on subject headings; if we believe that the whole purpose of a library is to make its collection accessible, we can't afford not to provide detailed access to collections. Effective retrieval is impossible without authority control (which however is free, since it is just cataloging done right). Gorman contrasted the "howling desert" of the Internet with the well-ordered world of libraries, comparing the Internet to a used bookstore in which the bindings, indexes, and front matter have been removed from all the books and they are arranged in no order. The user searches for clumps of related material, but has no idea of its source. It may seem ordinary to go into the largest library and be able to find a specific item, secure in provenance and immediately usable, but this is beyond the wildest dreams of Net-surfers. We need fast and efficient access to recorded knowledge and information, because we have lives to live and can't spend time surfing; subject access is an essential part of this, and is vital for future seekers of truth.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.90-97

0.1304213 = product of:
  0.2608426 = sum of:
    0.2608426 = sum of:
      0.14418226 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14418226 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
      0.116660334 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.116660334 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22

0.12268258 = sum of:
  0.09768394 = product of:
    0.2930518 = sum of:
      0.2930518 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2930518 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.52142775 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024998643 = product of:
    0.049997285 = sum of:
      0.049997285 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049997285 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.11874901 = sum of:
  0.089583926 = product of:
    0.26875177 = sum of:
      0.26875177 = weight(_text_:objects in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26875177 = score(doc=5455,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.82213306 = fieldWeight in 5455, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5455)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.029165084 = product of:
    0.058330167 = sum of:
      0.058330167 = weight(_text_:22 in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058330167 = score(doc=5455,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5455, 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=5455)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although classification has been an important aspect of astronomy since stellar spectroscopy in the late nineteenth century, to date no comprehensive classification system has existed for all classes of objects in the universe. Here we present such a system, and lay out its foundational definitions and principles. The system consists of the "Three Kingdoms" of planets, stars and galaxies, eighteen families, and eighty-two classes of objects. Gravitation is the defining organizing principle for the families and classes, and the physical nature of the objects is the defining characteristic of the classes. The system should prove useful for both scientific and pedagogical purposes.

Date

21.11.2019 18:46:22

0.11718537 = sum of:
  0.02559541 = product of:
    0.07678623 = sum of:
      0.07678623 = weight(_text_:objects in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07678623 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.09158996 = sum of:
    0.05825843 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05825843 = score(doc=2656,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.033331525 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033331525 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.061503544 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)

Abstract

This poster explores the customization of DSpace to allow the use of the AGRIS Application Profile metadata standard and the AGROVOC thesaurus. The objective is the adaptation of DSpace, through the least invasive code changes either in the form of plug-ins or add-ons, to the specific needs of the Agricultural Sciences and Technology community. Metadata standards such as AGRIS AP, and Knowledge Organization Systems such as the AGROVOC thesaurus, provide mechanisms for sharing information in a standardized manner by recommending the use of common semantics and interoperable syntax (Subirats et al., 2007). AGRIS AP was created to enhance the description, exchange and subsequent retrieval of agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs). It is a metadata schema which draws from Metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC), the Australian Government Locator Service Metadata (AGLS) and the Agricultural Metadata Element Set (AgMES) namespaces. It allows sharing of information across dispersed bibliographic systems (FAO, 2005). AGROVOC68 is a multilingual structured thesaurus covering agricultural and related domains. Its main role is to standardize the indexing process in order to make searching simpler and more efficient. AGROVOC is developed by FAO (Lauser et al., 2006). The customization of the DSpace is taking place in several phases. First, the AGRIS AP metadata schema was mapped onto the metadata DSpace model, with several enhancements implemented to support AGRIS AP elements. Next, AGROVOC will be integrated as a controlled vocabulary accessed through a local SKOS or OWL file. Eventually the system will be configurable to access AGROVOC through local files or remotely via webservices. Finally, spell checking and tooltips will be incorporated in the user interface to support metadata editing. Adapting DSpace to support AGRIS AP and annotation using the semantically-rich AGROVOC thesaurus transform DSpace into a powerful, domain-specific system for annotation and exchange of bibliographic metadata in the agricultural domain.

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

0.1168831 = sum of:
  0.044791963 = product of:
    0.13437589 = sum of:
      0.13437589 = weight(_text_:objects in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13437589 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07209113 = product of:
    0.14418226 = sum of:
      0.14418226 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14418226 = score(doc=3028,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The growing number and sophistication of online bibliographic and networked based information systems is starting to blur the once clear boundaries that separated print documents. 2 concepts emerge as a consequence of these developments, first the 'union record', an entity which combines multiple catalog records for a single bibliographic item into an extended information object; and 2nd, an information 'dossier', a hypertext-like information object built by linking several distinct but related bibliographic entites

0.1168831 = sum of:
  0.044791963 = product of:
    0.13437589 = sum of:
      0.13437589 = weight(_text_:objects in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13437589 = score(doc=1998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3268957 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.07209113 = product of:
    0.14418226 = sum of:
      0.14418226 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14418226 = score(doc=1998,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores the question "What is an International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) resource in the context of the Semantic Web, and what is the relationship of its description to the linked data?" This question is discussed against the background of the dichotomy between the description and access using the Semantic Web differentiation of the three logical layers: real-world objects, web of data, and special purpose (bibliographic) data. The representation of bibliographic data as linked data is discussed, distinguishing the description of a resource from the iconic/objective and the informational/subjective viewpoints. In the conclusion, the authors give views on possible directions of future development of the ISBD.

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "ISBD: The Bibliographic Content Standard "

0.11572139 = product of:
  0.23144278 = sum of:
    0.23144278 = sum of:
      0.16477972 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16477972 = score(doc=3089,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
      0.06666305 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06666305 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Defines bibliographic utilities. The databases maintained by most bibliographic utilities are essentially online union catalogues. Describes 7 organisations that offer online, timeshared cataloguing support services in North America: OCLC; RLIN; the Western Library Network (WLN); Utlas; the AGILE 3 system; the Interactive Access System; and Open DRANET. Discusses equipment and communications; database characteristics; record retrieval; cataloguing support; output products; related products and services; and utilities versus CD-ROM

Date

30.11.1995 20:53:22

0.11572139 = product of:
  0.23144278 = sum of:
    0.23144278 = sum of:
      0.16477972 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16477972 = score(doc=5286,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 5286, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5286)
      0.06666305 = weight(_text_:22 in 5286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06666305 = score(doc=5286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5286, 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=5286)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Proposes a new model for bibliographic access, the virtual catalogue, to serve the virtual library. Suggests the use of current software and networks to build links between bibliographic databases of all kinds, including full text, to enable the user to search a specified subset of databases. Suggests that local data be limited to holdings information linked to, but separate from, bibliographic databases both local and remote

Date

8.10.2000 14:47:22

0.11448744 = product of:
  0.22897488 = sum of:
    0.22897488 = sum of:
      0.14564607 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14564607 = score(doc=3948,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.239436 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 3948, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3948)
      0.08332881 = weight(_text_:22 in 3948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08332881 = score(doc=3948,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21537493 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.061503544 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3948, 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=3948)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält u.a.: Grimaldi, T.: The object of cataloguing; Byrum, J.D., O.M.A. Madison: Reflections an the goals, concepts and recommendations of the IFLA study an Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records;

Date

29. 8.2005 12:54:22