Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  • × author_ss:"Greenberg, J."
  1. Greenberg, J.: Intellectual control of visual archives : a comparison between the Art and Architecture Thesaurus and the Library of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (1993) 0.02 
    0.01810185 = product of:
  0.0844753 = sum of:
    0.044100422 = weight(_text_:subject in 546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044100422 = score(doc=546,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 546, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=546)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=546)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=546)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The following investigation is a comparison between the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) and the LC Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (LCTGM), two popular sources for providing subject access to visual archives. The analysis begins with a discussion on the nature of visual archives and the employment of archival control theory to graphic materials. The major difference observed is that the AAT is a faceted structure geared towards a specialized audience of art and architecture researchers, while LCTGM is similar to LCSH in structure and aims to service the wide-spread archival community. The conclusion recognizes the need to understand the differences between subject thesauri and subject heading lists, and the pressing need to investigate and understand intellectual control of visual archives in today's automated environment.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.1, S.85-117
  2. Greenberg, J.: Subject control of ephemera : MARC format options (1996) 0.01 
    0.013514834 = product of:
  0.09460384 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=543,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Provides an overview of the MARC format and the structure of the bibliographic MARC record. Discusses the MARC-AMC and MARC-VM formats as options for controlling ephemera, lists popular controlled vocabulary tools for subject control over ephemera material and examines subject analysis methodologies. Considers the specific MARC field options for the subject control of ephemera and provides 3 worked examples. Concludes that, while it can be argued that the MARC format does not provide an ideal control system for ephemera, it does offer an excellent means of controlling ephemera in the online environment and permits ephemera to be intellectually linked with related materials of all formats
  3. Greenberg, J.: Reference structures : stagnation, progress, and future challenges (1997) 0.00 
    0.0021217826 = product of:
  0.029704956 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Assesses the current state of reference structures in OPACs in a framework defined by stagnation, progress, and future challenges. 'Stagnation' referes to the limited and inconsistent reference structure access provided in current OPACs. 'Progress' refers to improved OPAC reference structure access and reference structure possibilities that extend beyond those commonly represented in existing subject autgority control tools. The progress discussion is supported by a look at professional committee work, data modelling ideas, ontological theory, and one area of linguistic research. The discussion ends with a list of 6 areas needing attention if reference structure access is to be improved in the future OPAC environment

Themes