Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03526994 = product of:
  0.14107975 = sum of:
    0.119052984 = weight(_text_:union in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119052984 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.6360333 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
    0.022026764 = product of:
      0.04405353 = sum of:
        0.04405353 = weight(_text_:22 in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04405353 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4064, 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=4064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

29. 7.2006 20:06:22

0.016836634 = product of:
  0.13469307 = sum of:
    0.13469307 = weight(_text_:union in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13469307 = score(doc=5518,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.7195895 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

1967 saw the publication of the printed Erlangen periodicals index. Between 1973-76 an alphabetical union catalogue for the university of Erlangen-Nürnberg was produced. From 1982 main entries went to the Bavarian library cooperative offline and computerization was introduced. In 1986 the periodicals index began using computerization; the union catalogue was filmed and appeared in microfiche in 1987. Now the Erlangen cooperative has 1.4 million entries, one third from institute libraries

0.014107974 = product of:
  0.056431897 = sum of:
    0.04762119 = weight(_text_:union in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04762119 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.2544133 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
    0.0088107055 = product of:
      0.017621411 = sum of:
        0.017621411 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017621411 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, 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=3624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

0.0128878625 = product of:
  0.1031029 = sum of:
    0.1031029 = weight(_text_:union in 5484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1031029 = score(doc=5484,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.55082095 = fieldWeight in 5484, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5484)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article discusses cataloging and classification history in Mexico and how cataloging and classification have evolved according to the changes that libraries and library science have experienced on both a national and international level. The first part of the article refers to the first half of the twentieth century, detailing the origins of cataloging and classification history. The second part presents discussion of the development and consolidation of both cataloging and classification during the second half of the twentieth century. The article also discusses subject headings, automation, centralization, and union catalogs in Mexico. It discusses past difficulties in creating a union catalog at a national level and the advantages of automated systems in helping to develop this needed union catalog. The article discusses the need to resume publication of the Bibliografía Mexicana. One of the main problems that Mexican libraries have faced is a scarcity of librarians adequately prepared to perform cataloging and classification of their collections. This lack of librarians is even more acute in the Mexican states. There are insufficient numbers of students in library schools to provide the staffing that libraries demand not only for cataloguing and classification but also for many other library activities.

0.011905298 = product of:
  0.09524238 = sum of:
    0.09524238 = weight(_text_:union in 7376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09524238 = score(doc=7376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.5088266 = fieldWeight in 7376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7376)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Discusses the falling into disuse of the card catalogue in the face of the online catalogue, briefly tracing the history of the card catalogue. Describes an attempt to find a representative card catalogue to donate to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., as an object of historical and scientific interest. The attempt was successful when one from the Union Theological Seminary in Virginia provided an excellent example which the Smithsonian accepted

0.010417135 = product of:
  0.08333708 = sum of:
    0.08333708 = weight(_text_:union in 5651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08333708 = score(doc=5651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.44522327 = fieldWeight in 5651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5651)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper outlines the development of serials cataloguing in Germany, which started with entries usually in systematic catalogues. Cataloguing codes were developed first by individual major libraries; the establishment of a Prussian union catalogue called for generally recognized rules, but these focused mainly on sorting and filing. When, in the 1960s, the Prussian Instructions were given up in favor of RAK (Regeln für Alphabetische Katalogisierung), ISBD was adopted for the descriptive part. As to modern international cooperation, this paper explains that the main obstacles are not so much different cataloguing codes but the lack of consensus on the definition of a serial title. Recent revision efforts missed the opportunity of accepting an International Standard Serials Title.

0.008928973 = product of:
  0.071431786 = sum of:
    0.071431786 = weight(_text_:union in 5650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071431786 = score(doc=5650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.38161996 = fieldWeight in 5650, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5650)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper outlines the development of serials cataloguing in Germany, which started with entries usually in systematic catalogues. Cataloguing codes were developed first by individual major libraries; the establishment of a Prussian union catalogue called for generally recognized rules, but these focused mainly on sorting and filing. When, in the 1960s, the Prussian Instructions were given up in favor of RAK (Regeln für Alphabetische Katalogisierung), ISBD was adopted for the descriptive part. As to modern international cooperation, this paper explains that the main obstacles are not so much different cataloguing codes but the lack of consensus on the definition of a serial title. Recent revision efforts missed the opportunity of accepting an International Standard Serials Title.

0.005952649 = product of:
  0.04762119 = sum of:
    0.04762119 = weight(_text_:union in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04762119 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.2544133 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

0.005952649 = product of:
  0.04762119 = sum of:
    0.04762119 = weight(_text_:union in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04762119 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.2544133 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

0.005952649 = product of:
  0.04762119 = sum of:
    0.04762119 = weight(_text_:union in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04762119 = score(doc=4058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18718043 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032515142 = queryNorm
        0.2544133 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.756716 = idf(docFreq=379, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: Blake, V.L.P.: Forging the Anglo-American Cataloging Alliance: descriptive cataloging, 1830-1908; M. Carpenter, M.: The original 73 rules of the British Museum: a preliminary analysis; De Rijk Spanhoff, E.: Principle issues: catalog paradigms, old and new; Mutula, S.M., Tsvakai, M.: Historical perspectives of cataloguing and classification; Barber, E.E., Tripaldi, N.M., Pisano, S.L.: Facts, approaches, and reflections an classification in the history of Argentine librarianship; MirandaArguedas, A.: Standardization of technical processes in Central American Libraries; Steinhagen, EN.: Historical perspective of a union catalog in Chile: authorities and periodicals; Liu, S.Q., Shen, Z.G.: The development of cataloging in China; Popst, H.: The development of descriptive cataloging in Germany; Croissant, C.R.: RAK or AACR2? : the current discussion in Germany an cataloging rules; Soltani, P.: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification in Iran; Takawashi, T.: Cataloging in Japan: relationship between Japanese and Western cataloging rules; Martinez-Arellano, F.F.: Cataloging and classification history in Mexico; Carter, R.C.: Three book collectors of imperial Spain; Lincoln, T.: Cultural reassertion of Alaska native languages and cultures: libraries' responses; Descriptive standards and the archival profession; Shuler, J.A.: Foundations of government information and bibliographic control in the United States: 1789-1900; Zhou, L.: Characteristics of material organization and classification in the Kinsey Institute Library; Goldberg, J.E.: Development of a universal law classification: a retrospective an Library of Congress Class K; Lubas, R.L.: The evolution of bibliographic control of maps; Guthrie II, L.S.: Monastic cataloging and classification and the beginnings of Class B at the Library of Congress; Bradley, C.J.: Classifying and cataloguing music in American Libraries: a historical overview; Haddad, P.: Cataloging and classification of Pacific and Asian language materials at the National Library of Australia; Russell, B.M.: Description and access in rare books cataloging: a historical survey; Waithe, M.E., Vintro, M.E.: Posthumously plagiarizing Oliva Sabuco: an appeal to cataloging librarians; Walravens, H.: Serials cataloguing in Germany: the historical development; Smiraglia, R.P.: The history of The Work in the modern catalog.

0.0054513463 = product of:
  0.04361077 = sum of:
    0.04361077 = product of:
      0.08722154 = sum of:
        0.08722154 = weight(_text_:22 in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08722154 = score(doc=935,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 935, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=935)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 7.2007 12:05:26
22. 7.2007 12:08:24

0.004100707 = product of:
  0.032805655 = sum of:
    0.032805655 = product of:
      0.06561131 = sum of:
        0.06561131 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06561131 = score(doc=1675,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21333472 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.30755103 = fieldWeight in 1675, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

RSWK

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records / Aufsatzsammlung

Subject

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records / Aufsatzsammlung

0.0027533455 = product of:
  0.022026764 = sum of:
    0.022026764 = product of:
      0.04405353 = sum of:
        0.04405353 = weight(_text_:22 in 4056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04405353 = score(doc=4056,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4056, 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=4056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Pages

S.3-22

0.0025821333 = product of:
  0.020657066 = sum of:
    0.020657066 = product of:
      0.10328533 = sum of:
        0.10328533 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10328533 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27566373 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

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

0.0022026764 = product of:
  0.017621411 = sum of:
    0.017621411 = product of:
      0.035242822 = sum of:
        0.035242822 = weight(_text_:22 in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035242822 = score(doc=4431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4431, 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=4431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 22(1975) H.5, S.387-390

0.0019273418 = product of:
  0.015418734 = sum of:
    0.015418734 = product of:
      0.030837469 = sum of:
        0.030837469 = weight(_text_:22 in 5479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030837469 = score(doc=5479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5479, 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=5479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2002) nos.1/2, S.3-22

6.883364E-4 = product of:
  0.005506691 = sum of:
    0.005506691 = product of:
      0.011013382 = sum of:
        0.011013382 = weight(_text_:22 in 4610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011013382 = score(doc=4610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113862485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032515142 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

24.10.2008 14:19:22