Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02216506 = product of:
  0.17732048 = sum of:
    0.08866024 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08866024 = score(doc=6109,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6213826 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
    0.08866024 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08866024 = score(doc=6109,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6213826 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This paper reviews the perceived threats to the future of cataloguing posed by the increasing volume of publications in all media, coupled with a resource base which is declining in real terms. It argues that cataloguing is more rather than less important in such an environment and considers some of the ways in which cataloguing will have to change in order to survive.
The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.

0.02124553 = product of:
  0.16996424 = sum of:
    0.08498212 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 5177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08498212 = score(doc=5177,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.5956042 = fieldWeight in 5177, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5177)
    0.08498212 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 5177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08498212 = score(doc=5177,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.5956042 = fieldWeight in 5177, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5177)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Bibliofile is a CD-ROM cataloguing product that provides LC MARC records. Available databases include English only, foreign language materials, audio-visual materials, as well as several that are more specialized. Bibliofile runs on a PC that may be connected to a network. Advantages over an online utility include lower cost, no telecommunication problems, no slow response times, fixed subscription rates with no hourly use charges, easy installation, searching and editing and good phone support. Disadvantages include no member-contributed records and no member holdings to use for interlibrary loan. A library should consider type and level of materials catalogued, existence of an interface with a local OPAC, total cataloguing time used, and other sources for ILL searching when considering bibliofile as a cataloguing alternative

0.010513811 = product of:
  0.08411049 = sum of:
    0.042055245 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 6103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042055245 = score(doc=6103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.29474765 = fieldWeight in 6103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6103)
    0.042055245 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 6103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042055245 = score(doc=6103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.29474765 = fieldWeight in 6103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6103)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

A draft of Functional Requirements for Authority Records (FRAR) was made available for worldwide review on IFLANET from July through October 2005. The FRANAR Working Group received comments from 12 individuals and 13 institutions (including 6 national libraries and 3 national-level cataloguing committees). The working group expresses its appreciation to all who took the time to prepare comments. The comments received were compiled into a comments log which totaled 145 pages. Seven members of the Working Group met at the Koninklijke Bibliothek, The Hague, Netherlands, on December 9, 2005, to consider these comments and to start revising the draft to reflect decisions made in response to the comments. The group was able to deal with about two-thirds of the comments during the meeting and, since the December meeting has had a series of four conference calls to complete discussions of the remaining comments, with additional calls anticipated before the Seoul meetings.

4.0760744E-4 = product of:
  0.006521719 = sum of:
    0.006521719 = product of:
      0.013043438 = sum of:
        0.013043438 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013043438 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.