Search (156 results, page 1 of 8)

0.047872115 = product of:
  0.107712254 = sum of:
    0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128330635 = score(doc=5760,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
    0.047685754 = weight(_text_:software in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047685754 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5760, 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=5760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Abstract

Normalization rules are essential for interoperability between bibliographic systems. In the process of working with Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) authority files to match records with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and developing the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject heading schema, the authors found inconsistencies in independently created NACO normalization implementations. Investigating these, the authors found ambiguities in the NACO standard that need resolution, and came to conclusions on how the procedure could be simplified with little impact on matching headings. To encourage others to test their software for compliance with the current rules, the authors have established a Web site that has test files and interactive services showing their current implementation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.034487598 = product of:
  0.103462785 = sum of:
    0.0074091726 = weight(_text_:of in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074091726 = score(doc=2976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.120940685 = fieldWeight in 2976, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2976)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=2976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2976, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2976)
    0.06743785 = weight(_text_:software in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06743785 = score(doc=2976,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.43390724 = fieldWeight in 2976, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2976)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Neither the standards nor the software underlying institutional repositories anticipated performing name authority control on widely disparate metadata from highly unreliable sources. Without it, though, both machines and humans are stymied in their efforts to access and aggregate information by author. Many organizations are awakening to the problems and possibilities of name authority control, but without better coordination, their efforts will only confuse matters further. Local heuristics-based name-disambiguation software may help those repository managers who can implement it. For the time being, however, most repository managers can only control their own name lists as best they can after deposit while they advocate for better systems and services.

0.034337863 = product of:
  0.10301359 = sum of:
    0.06711562 = weight(_text_:applications in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06711562 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38913056 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014666359 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.021231614 = product of:
      0.042463228 = sum of:
        0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042463228 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

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

0.032419275 = product of:
  0.09725782 = sum of:
    0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020956306 = score(doc=425,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 425, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=425)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=425)
    0.047685754 = weight(_text_:software in 425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047685754 = score(doc=425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=425)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

The costs of authority control are high and the information provided in authority files is often duplicated in separate bibliographic files. Librarians need to examine the compatibility of traditional methods of authority control with the advanced capabilities of current computer systems. This study investigates the actual use of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) by catalogers in an RLIN member library. Results show that some aspects of authority control could be expedited by changes in cataloging practice and search software.

0.02226542 = product of:
  0.06679626 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=180,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

A variety of information communities have developed metadata schemes to meet the needs of their own users. The ability of libraries to incorporate and use multiple metadata schemes in current library systems will depend on the compatibility of imported data with existing catalog data. Authority control will play an important role in metadata interoperability. In this article, I discuss factors for successful authority control in current library catalogs, which include operation in a well-defined and bounded universe, application of principles and standard practices to access point creation, reference to authoritative lists, and bibliographic record creation by highly trained individuals. Metadata characteristics and environmental models are examined and the likelihood of successful authority control is explored for a variety of metadata environments.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.021887988 = product of:
  0.06566396 = sum of:
    0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018332949 = score(doc=191,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
    0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034061253 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
    0.013269759 = product of:
      0.026539518 = sum of:
        0.026539518 = weight(_text_:22 in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026539518 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 191, 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=191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

International efforts to provide authority control include the work of IFLA, the AUTHOR Project funded by the European Commission, and related work conducted under the auspices of the ICA/CDS. IFLA developed the guidelines Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, documented the formulation of names along the lines of national origin in its publication Names of Persons, and published Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. Attention has shifted from a single authority record for each entity that would be shared internationally through the exchange of records to linking parallel authority records for the same entity. The access control of the future will account for difference in cataloging rules, transliteration standards, and cultural differences within the same language as well as for the need for different languages and scripts and will enable users to display the script and form of a heading that they expect. Project AUTHOR is a shared set of resource national authority files that used selections from the authority files of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. The prototype tested an adaptation of Z39.50 server software for authority records and displays for user interface. An international standard for authority control records has been developed for corporate bodies, persons, and families. Through joint meetings efforts have been synchronized to develop authority control at the international level.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.016343227 = product of:
  0.07354452 = sum of:
    0.05872617 = weight(_text_:applications in 696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05872617 = score(doc=696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34048924 = fieldWeight in 696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=696)
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=696,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 696, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=696)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Authority control enhances the accessibility of library resources by controlling the choice and form of access points, improving users' ability to efficiently find the works most relevant to their information search. While authority control and the technologies that support its implementation continue to evolve, the underlying principles and purposes remain the same. Written primarily for a new generation of librarians, this paper illuminates the importance of authority control in cataloging and library database management, discusses its history, describes current practices, and introduces readers to trends and issues in the field, including future applications beyond the library catalog.

0.014251537 = product of:
  0.064131916 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 1160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=1160,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1160, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1160)
    0.04719666 = weight(_text_:software in 1160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04719666 = score(doc=1160,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3036718 = fieldWeight in 1160, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1160)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper is the second in a series in D-Lib Magazine and describes a workflow management system being developed by the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) at the Milton S. Eisenhower Library (MSEL) of The Johns Hopkins University. Based on experience from digitizing the Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music, it was apparent that large-scale digitization efforts require a significant amount of human labor that is both time-consuming and costly. Consequently, this workflow management system aims to reduce the amount of human labor and time for large-scale digitization projects. The mission of this second phase of the project ("Levy II") can be summarized as follows: * Reduce costs for large collection ingestion by creating a suite of open-source processes, tools, and interfaces for workflow management * Increase access capabilities by providing a suite of research tools * Demonstrate utility of tools and processes with a subset of the online Levy Collection The cornerstones of the workflow management system include optical music recognition (OMR) software and an automated name authority control system (ANAC). The OMR software generates a logical representation of the score for sound generation, music searching, and musicological research. The ANAC disambiguates names, associating each name with an individual (e.g., the composer Septimus Winner also published under the pseudonyms Alice Hawthorne and Apsley Street, among others). Complementing the workflow tools, a suite of research tools focuses upon enhanced searching capabilities through the development and application of a fast, disk-based search engine for lyrics and music and the incorporation of an XML structure for metadata. The first paper (Choudhury et al. 2001) described the OMR software and musical components of Levy II. This paper focuses on the metadata and intellectual access components that include automated name authority control and the aforementioned search engine.

0.013542032 = product of:
  0.060939144 = sum of:
    0.022403233 = weight(_text_:of in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022403233 = score(doc=4360,freq=56.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
          7.483315 = tf(freq=56.0), with freq of:
            56.0 = termFreq=56.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
    0.03853591 = weight(_text_:software in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853591 = score(doc=4360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24794699 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Before speaking about authority control in a multilingual environment, it is necessary to describe briefly the context in which this control is carried out. The electronic catalogue of the Russian State Library (RSL) contains more than 3 million records. Cataloguing with the use of the Aleph software and ??RC 21 has been carried out for this database since 2003. Other bibliographic records included in the electronic catalogue are received as a result of converting (1) bibliographic records from card catalogues, and (2) the bibliographic records created by RSL and other organizations with the use of other software and other formats. Up to 2003 the electronic catalogue included only records in Russian and in European languages. In 2003 we started cataloguing books and serials in the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation and former union republics of the USSR. This year we are preparing for the description of documents in oriental languages. This "motley world" demands ordering and normalization of access points. Until 2003, two authority files were maintained in the RSL: the foreign and international organizations file and a file of "authors of special categories." Authority records were created in a format based on USMARC. In 2003 the authority control group was reorganized and its function widened. Now we are supposed to carry out the authority control of headings (controlled access points) in new bibliographic records by formation of authority records for these categories: - Names of persons, creators or objects of the work translated to Russian from other languages when in the document there is an original form of the name - Names of persons in which the forms of the names on the document differ from the form established for the system of catalogues at RSL - Such names of persons, as "authors of special categories" - Names of corporate bodies, Russian, foreign or international (creators or objects of the work), occurring in the system for the first time - Names of the corporate bodies, Russian, foreign or international reflected in authority records (machine-readable and traditional) if the form of the name on the document differs from the form established for the system of catalogues at RSL - The uniform titles of the Bible and its parts, anonymous classical works

Footnote

Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.

0.013324712 = product of:
  0.059961203 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=5669,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
    0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040879667 = score(doc=5669,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.339541 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Today's electronic catalogue makes retrieval of specific records very simple and quick in most (not all) cases, but searches aimed at the reliable retrieval of all material answering a well-defined need (author, work, theme, form, etc.) are still long and tiring, and sometimes impossible, in crowded bibliographic databases. In spite of its great relevance, authority control has been and still is the "poor relative" of cataloguing, the often neglected or overlooked "other half" if we compare it to the creation of bibliographic records. The FRBR study and the new authority control standards (GARR and UNIMARC Authorities) are important steps towards future perspectives. Even today, cataloguing codes do not make clear the difference between the access points for bibliographic records and the relationships (work-to-work, author-to-work, etc.) that are independent from spoecific publications. With the development of richer authority records and relationships, the bibliographic record might be relieved of information related to entities different from publications and of all the functions more suitably worked out upstream or downstream in access systems or by links to the images and/or the texts of the publications themselves. A "light" bibliographic record would no longer be the paramount component of library information systems; it would keep its central role rather as nimble, swift turntable between access and content organization systems and systems for management and display of digital resources themselves.

0.012508754 = product of:
  0.05628939 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=2288,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
    0.045704857 = weight(_text_:systems in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045704857 = score(doc=2288,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Bibliographic data is used to describe resources held in the collections of libraries, archives and museums. That data is mostly available on the Web today and mostly as linked data. Also on the Web are the controlled vocabulary systems of name authority files, like the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), classification systems, and subject terms. These systems offer their own linked data to potentially help users find the information they want - whether at their local library or anywhere in the world that is willing to make their resources available. We have found it beneficial to merge authority data for names on a global level, as the entities are relatively clear. That is not true for subject concepts and terminology that have categorisation systems developed according to varying principles and schemes and are in multiple languages. Rather than requiring everyone in the world to use the same categorisation/classification system in the same language, we know that the Web offers us the opportunity to add descriptors assigned around the world using multiple systems from multiple perspectives to identify our resources. Those descriptors add value to refine searches, help users worldwide and share globally what each library does locally.

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.012267706 = product of:
  0.05520468 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=2293,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.03540283 = weight(_text_:systems in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03540283 = score(doc=2293,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

We illustrate the principle of unified treatment of all authority data for any kind of entities, subjects/topics, places, events, persons, organizations, etc. through the design and implementation of an enriched authority database for organizations, maintained as an integral part of an authority database that also includes subject authority control / classification data, using the same structures for data and common modules for processing and display of data. Organization-related data are stored in information systems of many companies. We specifically examine the case of the World Bank Group (WBG) according to organization role: suppliers, partners, customers, competitors, authors, publishers, or subjects of documents, loan recipients, suppliers for WBG-funded projects and subunits of the organization itself. A central organization authority where each organization is identified by a URI, represented by several names and linked to other organizations through hierarchical and other relationships serves to link data from these disparate information systems. Designing the conceptual structure of a unified authority database requires integrating SKOS, the W3C Organization Ontology and other schemes into one comprehensive ontology. To populate the authority database with organizations, we import data from external sources (e.g., DBpedia and Library of Congress authorities) and internal sources (e.g., the lists of organizations from multiple WBG information systems).

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.011770782 = product of:
  0.052968517 = sum of:
    0.019249594 = weight(_text_:of in 5042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249594 = score(doc=5042,freq=54.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3142131 = fieldWeight in 5042, product of:
          7.3484693 = tf(freq=54.0), with freq of:
            54.0 = termFreq=54.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5042)
    0.033718925 = weight(_text_:software in 5042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033718925 = score(doc=5042,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21695362 = fieldWeight in 5042, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5042)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Work on a prototype of the new Soggettario (the main Italian subject heading list) has begun in October 2004 at the Central National Library of Florence (BNCF). BNCF is involving in the renewal of the most used subject indexing tool of Italian libraries. The project had already produced a Feasibility Study, representing a reference for the works which have started recently. An Italian abstract of the Feasibility Study, and more documentation, can be found in the BCNF website at the Web address <http://www bncf.firenze.sbn.it/progetti/>. Together with the project team and the BNCF staff, some young external consultants are working, who are focusing on the terminological component of the system, namely the prototype of the Thesaurus. At the same time, documents are produced which define procedures, establish criteria, and give guidelines. The list of items by which the prototype started consists of: - the terms included in the updates provided by the Italian National Bibliography (BNI) during the period 1986-1998 (already published in the form of lists); - the items introduced from 1999 to 2005 - other items introduced in the past years but never recorded; - some terms from the Soggettario (1956) or from BNI updates (1956-19S5), being especially outdated and needing revision. In building the semantic networks and the hierarchies, and in making the terminological control, of course, more terms have to be included, which come from the Soggettario, the BNI and other authoritative sources both catalographic (various indexing tools) and lexicographic (general and special directories). DDC numbers are also related to the terms in the Thesaurus. The prototype, to be completed in April 2006, will include a sample of terms for each disciplinary area. About 5000 terms will have a complete structure, but 6000 more will be included in the Thesaurus in order to fill the semantic networks, and marked with a different working status. For the prototype the AgroVoc software is used, which has been provided by FAO and adapted by the BNCF computing staff in order to match the specific requirements of the project. Thanks to the potential of this software, we intend to test in future on the multilingual side of terminology. Such work is likely to begin by testing links to the corresponding forms used by the Library of Congress. We are currently beginning to focus on this, and we wish that external parties be involved which are concerned with multilingual terminology in more or less specialistic contexts. We will follow the road of conventions with Italian universities, which could cooperate to this development through their students and graded students. We are also looking at the developments in the work of the British BSI working group on standards for thesauri convened by Stella Dextre Clarke.
Testing on the syntactic component of the language is in progress, carried out by a team working on the basis of some terms of the Thesaurus which have been identified for possessing some special features. This will maybe lead to some changes and simplifications in the original structures coming from the GRIS model <http://wwwaib.it/aib/commiss/gris/ guida.htm> and the Feasibility Study. Within June 2006, two basic documents will be published: - a paper volume containing the Rules, concerning both terminology and syntax, explanations of the Thesaurus, criteria, choices made about the categories and the width of the semantic network, etc.; - a CD containing the Thesaurus. One side of great interest will be the c-learning process of the indexing language of the new Soggettario. This has to be undertaken only after the prototype stage is done. At that time, once the text of the Rules will have been published, it will be possible for the system to spread, to be learned, and to be tested by various indexers and partners.

0.011700021 = product of:
  0.052650094 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 5682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=5682,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 5682, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5682)
    0.034687545 = weight(_text_:systems in 5682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034687545 = score(doc=5682,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 5682, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5682)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) headings is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains compatibility with LCSH--any valid Library of Congress subject heading can be converted to FAST headings.

0.011127857 = product of:
  0.050075352 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=82,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=82,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper examines the current state of authority control development in Spanish university repositories. As a decade has now gone by since the initiation of the first projects for institutional repositories in Spain, it would seem a suitable time to draw attention to authority control, an element of the first rank in evaluating the consistency and integrity of systems for recovering bibliographic information. The work is focused on examining the implementation of authorities in twenty-six Spanish university repositories, taking into account the information provided by the standardization experts working in them. The study considers the responses of the coordinators for these digital collections using a set of analytic criteria set out in the study. The handling of authorities in the group of university repositories studied may be described as uneven. Greater interest may be observed in controlling author entries, with laxer solutions for authority control of subjects. It suggests the need to establish effective policies for the management of authorities by means of cooperative efforts permitting the building up of corpora of entries for authorities that would aid the processes of cataloguing, metadata creation, and information retrieval in systems based on syntactic and semantic interoperability in which manual intervention should be minimal.

0.011030885 = product of:
  0.049638983 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=436,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper traces the efforts made by IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions over the past three decades to promote the concept of Universal bibliographic Control in relation to authorities and authority control. It covers the work done by various groups within IFLA to develop standards for personal and corporate name headings, for authority and reference entries, and for UNIMARC/Authorities. The paper concludes with a summary of possible models for the future development of a systems infrastructure for international authority control.

0.010731114 = product of:
  0.048290014 = sum of:
    0.023762217 = weight(_text_:of in 2298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023762217 = score(doc=2298,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 2298, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2298)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 2298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=2298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2298)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

A classification scheme represents a powerful indexing and retrieval tool. Obsolete terminology and misalignment between widely used systems is key impediment to better use of classification. This paper looks into the issues caused by delay in the revision of UDC class of medical sciences and possible solutions. Following a short description of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) and of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Classification, the author analyses the notations and captions included in 61 class of the UDC Summary. All the classes, subclasses and special auxiliary subdivisions are covered in order to find compatible notations between both schemes, out-of-date vocabulary and out-of-date subdivisions of UDC. As a result of this study and in light of the most recent developments in medical sciences, one subdivision is questioned and several vocabulary expressions included in the caption fields are proposed to be changed or updated.

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.010663961 = product of:
  0.047987826 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=2506,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=2506,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Content

This paper looks at approaches to name authority control in repository contexts and describes the work of the Names project, which has been funded to investigate issues surrounding the identification of individuals and institutions within repositories of research outputs in the United Kingdom. The problem of uniquely identifying authors has been with us ever since books have been catalogued. National libraries have been creating name authority files for authors of books for many years, starting with card catalogues and now maintaining electronic files in MARC format. However, authority files for the creators of journal articles do not tend to exist in library systems. The increasing use of subject-based and institutional repositories to hold working papers, reports, research data, and pre-refereed and post-referred versions of articles has led to a corresponding rise in the number of authors identified in such systems. Without having a means of uniquely and unambiguously identifying the creators of materials in repositories, it becomes difficult to be sure whether all the materials related to a particular author will be correctly associated with that individual. Names of authors may be entered in more than one way, or more than one author may have exactly the same name. This article looks at recent attempts to address this problem in the repository environment and goes on to explain the approach that is planned to be taken in the Names project.

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.010497608 = product of:
  0.047239237 = sum of:
    0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018332949 = score(doc=3083,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=3083,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Authority control is a quite recent term in the long history of cataloguing, although the underlying principle is among the very early principles of bibliographic control. Bibliographic control is a Field in transformation by the rapid expansion of the WWW, which has brought new problems to infonnation discovery and retrieval, creating new challenges and requirements in information management. In a comprehensive approach, authority control is presented as one of the most promising library activities in this respect. The evolution of work methods and standards for the sharing of authority files is reviewed, showing the imbalance in developments and practical achievements between name and subject authority, in an international perspective. The need to improve the network availability and usability of authority information assets in more effective and holistic ways is underlyned; and a new philosophy and scope is proposed for library authority work, based an the primacy of the linking function of authority data, and by expanding the finding, relating and informing functions of authority records. Some of these aspects are being addressed in several projects dealing with knowledge organization systems, notably to cope with multilingual needs and to enable semantic interoperability among different systems. Library practice itself should evolve in the same direction, thereby providing practical experience to inform new or improved principles and standards for authority work, while contributing to enhance local information services and to promote their involvement in the WWW environment.

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.009928614 = product of:
  0.044678763 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=1901,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=1901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article presents a conceptual framework for library name authority control, including methods for disambiguating agents that share the same name and for collocating works of agents who use multiple names. It then discusses the identifier solutions tried or proposed in the library community for name authority control, analyzes the various identity management systems emerging outside of the library community, and envisions future trends in name authority control.