Search (113 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Kohl-Frey, O.: ¬Die Öffnung der digitalen Magazinbibliothek : Entwicklungen an der Universität Konstanz zwischen Summon und Hybrid Bookshelf (2014) 0.02 
    0.022602666 = product of:
  0.20342399 = sum of:
    0.20342399 = weight(_text_:konstanz in 2575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20342399 = score(doc=2575,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18256405 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.637764 = idf(docFreq=427, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        1.1142609 = fieldWeight in 2575, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.637764 = idf(docFreq=427, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2575)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Dieser Artikel beschreibt zunächst die Erfahrungen der Universität Konstanz mit Summon als Discovery-Service. Summon wurde im Jahr 2011 als "KonSearch - die Literatursuchmaschine der Universität Konstanz" eingeführt. Seitdem stiegen die Nutzung und die Akzeptanz dauerhaft an. Im gleichen Jahr wurde an der Universität Konstanz das Projekt Blended Library gestartet. Innerhalb dieses Projekts wurden mehrere Ideen zur Verbindung von gedrucktem und digitalem Bestand und dem Ort Bibliothek entwickelt. Dies führte zum sogenannten Hybrid Bookshelf, das derzeit entwickelt wird.
    Location
    Konstanz
  2. Klic, L.; Miller, M.; Nelson, J.K.; Pattuelli, C.; Provo, A.: ¬The drawings of the Florentine painters : from print catalog to linked open data (2017) 0.02 
    0.022235736 = product of:
  0.10006081 = sum of:
    0.07539943 = weight(_text_:open in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07539943 = score(doc=4105,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5170568 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
    0.024661385 = weight(_text_:access in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024661385 = score(doc=4105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The Drawings of The Florentine Painters project created the first online database of Florentine Renaissance drawings by applying Linked Open Data (LOD) techniques to a foundational text of the same name, first published by Bernard Berenson in 1903 (revised and expanded editions, 1938 and 1961). The goal was to make Berenson's catalog information-still an essential information resource today-available in a machine-readable format, allowing researchers to access the source content through open data services. This paper provides a technical overview of the methods and processes applied in the conversion of Berenson's catalog to LOD using the CIDOC-CRM ontology; it also discusses the different phases of the project, focusing on the challenges and issues of data transformation and publishing. The project was funded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and organized by Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Catalog: http://florentinedrawings.itatti.harvard.edu. Data Endpoint: http://data.itatti.harvard.edu.
  3. Kevil, L.H.: ¬The paper library : beyond the automated card catalog (1998) 0.02 
    0.017679734 = product of:
  0.079558805 = sum of:
    0.05078719 = weight(_text_:open in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05078719 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Without reform and adaptation to contemporary technology, existing paper libraries may become increasingly marginalized and eventually little more than book museums. Proposes a new method to organize access to paper resources by using relational database management systems technology to change libraries' existing data structures and concepts of organization of materials in order to create an open, shared, easy-to-use and cooperatively maintained system. Without substantial proactive change, users familiar with accessing and manipulating digital materials will become very intolerant of the anomalies and archaisms of libraries' card-based automated catalogues. Outlines the benefits of such a system and lists considerations which should be taken into account in its design
  4. Skinner, D.G.: ¬A comparison of searching functionality of a VuFind catalogue implementation and the traditional catalogue (2012) 0.02 
    0.017679734 = product of:
  0.079558805 = sum of:
    0.05078719 = weight(_text_:open in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05078719 = score(doc=5568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=5568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    As of spring semester 2010, Georgia Southern University began using a VuFind implementation as the default access to the library catalogue on the library Web page while maintaining a secondary link to the traditional Voyager "classic" catalogue. VuFind is an open-source product that has been adopted and adapted by all the state universities and colleges in the state of Georgia. For approximately ten years, Georgia libraries have used Voyager as their catalogue, and it remains available to users as the "classic" search option. This report examines the local VuFind implementation compared to the more traditional Voyager implementation, emphasizing the differences in the searching capabilities of each.
  5. Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.01 
    0.010102706 = product of:
  0.045462176 = sum of:
    0.029021252 = weight(_text_:open in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029021252 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.016440922 = weight(_text_:access in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016440922 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
    Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.
  6. Visintin, G.: Passaggi (1998) 0.01 
    0.009906995 = product of:
  0.044581477 = sum of:
    0.032881845 = weight(_text_:access in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032881845 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
    0.011699631 = product of:
      0.03509889 = sum of:
        0.03509889 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03509889 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3053, 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=3053)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Examines in detail the author cataloguing practices adopted by the Italian National Library Service, as set out in its 1995 Cataloguing Guide (Guida SBN), and discusses how far these practices accord with the standard 1979 RICA author cataloguing rules. Since the author headings prescribed by RICA include personal names, corporate names and titles, this survey looks at all such SBN catalogue entries having an access point function. Presents many examples of standard and variant forms of heading, and reviews control procedures
    Date
    22. 2.1999 20:40:57
  7. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.01 
    0.009580529 = product of:
  0.043112382 = sum of:
    0.030781688 = weight(_text_:open in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030781688 = score(doc=1271,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.21108757 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.012330692 = weight(_text_:access in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012330692 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.11234473 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
    Content
    Vgl. dazu auch die Forderungen der Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF), Katalogdaten grundsätzlich zur weiteren Nutzung freizugeben, unter: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2007/12/15/open-knowledge-foundation-fordert-freie-katalogdaten/.
  8. Flimm, O.: ¬Die Open-Source-Software OpenBib an der USB Köln : Überblick und Entwicklungen in Richtung OPAC 2.0 (2007) 0.01 
    0.0091205 = product of:
  0.0820845 = sum of:
    0.0820845 = weight(_text_:open in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0820845 = score(doc=4593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5629002 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Dieser Artikel beschreibt die vom Autor entwickelte und an der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln (USB) seit 1997 in verschiedenen Projekten eingesetzte Open-Source-Portalsoftware OpenBib. Nach einem grundlegenden Einblick in die Ursprünge, Technik und konkreten Einsatzgebiete an der USB werden weitergehende Funktionen des Portals erläutert, wie RSS-Feeds, Mashups, Tagging, Tag-Clouds, Nutzungsanalysen, Drilldowns sowie Kataloganreicherung. Viele davon sind charakteristisch für einen OPAC 2.0.
  9. Randall, N.B.: Spelling errors in the database : shadow or substance? (1999) 0.01 
    0.008668621 = product of:
  0.039008792 = sum of:
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  10. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01 
    0.008668621 = product of:
  0.039008792 = sum of:
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  11. Morgan, E.L.: Possible solutions for incorporating digital information mediums into traditional library cataloging services (1996) 0.01 
    0.008668621 = product of:
  0.039008792 = sum of:
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This article first compares and contrasts the essential, fundamental differences between traditional and digital information mediums. It then reexamines the role of the online public access catalog (OPAC), refines the definition of library's catalog, and advocates the addition of Internet resources within the OPAC. Next, the article describes the building of the Alex Catalog, a catalog of Internet resources in the in the form of MARC records. Finally, this article outlines a process of integrating the futher inclusion of other Internet resources into OPACs as well as some of the obstacles such a process manifests.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170
  12. Theimer, S.: ¬A cataloger's resolution to become more creative : how and why (2012) 0.01 
    0.008668621 = product of:
  0.039008792 = sum of:
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Creativity is now a core requirement for successful organizations. Libraries, like all organizations, need to produce and utilize new ideas to improve user service and experiences. With changes in cataloging such as Resource Description and Access (RDA), the opportunity to rethink cataloging practices is here now. Everyone has creative potential, although catalogers may have both a personality and work environment that make it more difficult. To be able to maximize creative capacity, catalogers need the proper work environment, support from their organization, and a plan for accomplishing creative goals. Given that environment, catalogers may create ideas that will shape the future. (RDA).
    Date
    29. 5.2015 11:08:22
  13. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.01 
    0.008237937 = product of:
  0.037070718 = sum of:
    0.024661385 = weight(_text_:access in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024661385 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.012409333 = product of:
      0.037228 = sum of:
        0.037228 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037228 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
  14. Stoker, D.: Computer cataloguing in retrospect (1997) 0.01 
    0.008083553 = product of:
  0.03637599 = sum of:
    0.02906372 = weight(_text_:access in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02906372 = score(doc=605,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
    0.0073122694 = product of:
      0.021936808 = sum of:
        0.021936808 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021936808 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
  15. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.01 
    0.008083553 = product of:
  0.03637599 = sum of:
    0.02906372 = weight(_text_:access in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02906372 = score(doc=190,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
    0.0073122694 = product of:
      0.021936808 = sum of:
        0.021936808 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021936808 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  16. Rodman, R.L.: Making the connection between processing and access : do cataloging decisions affect user access? (2000) 0.01 
    0.007750325 = product of:
  0.069752924 = sum of:
    0.069752924 = weight(_text_:access in 518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069752924 = score(doc=518,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.6355177 = fieldWeight in 518, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=518)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  17. Wiesenmüller, H.: Neues vom "Katalog der Zukunft" : Bericht von der dritten Stuttgarter OPAC-Fortbildung (2011) 0.01 
    0.0075811646 = product of:
  0.06823048 = sum of:
    0.06823048 = weight(_text_:konstanz in 4073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06823048 = score(doc=4073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18256405 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.637764 = idf(docFreq=427, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.37373447 = fieldWeight in 4073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.637764 = idf(docFreq=427, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4073)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Nach einschlägigen Fortbildungsveranstaltungen in Stuttgart in den Jahren 2004 und 20071 beschäftigte sich der Regionalverband Südwest des Vereins Deutscher Bibliothekare (VDB) bereits zum dritten Mal in einer Vortragsveranstaltung mit aktuellen und zukünftigen Entwicklungen bei Bibliothekskatalogen: "Der Katalog der Zukunft (Teil 3): Die Benutzer in den Mittelpunkt!" war der Titel der Veranstaltung am 11. November 2010. Gastgeber war - wie schon bei der Premiere der Veranstaltungsreihe im Jahr 2004 - die Universitätsbibliothek Stuttgart. Da der Landesverband Baden-Württemberg des Berufsverband Information Bibliothek (BIB) ebenfalls an der Thematik interessiert war, bot es sich an, die Fortbildung gemeinsam durchzuführen. Zugleich sollte damit ein Zeichen für eine engere Kooperation der beiden Berufsverbände gesetzt werden. Entsprechend wurde auch die Moderation geteilt: Vormittags moderierte Heidrun Wiesenmüller von der Stuttgarter Hochschule der Medien (VDB Südwest), nachmittags Isabell Leibing von der Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz (BIB Baden-Württemberg). Die Vortragsfolien und weitere Materialien können über die Websites des VDB-Regionalverbands Südwest und der BIB-Landesgruppe Baden-Württemberg abgerufen werden.
  18. Enhancing access to information : designing catalogs for the 21st century (1992) 0.01 
    0.0068503837 = product of:
  0.061653454 = sum of:
    0.061653454 = weight(_text_:access in 1009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061653454 = score(doc=1009,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5617236 = fieldWeight in 1009, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1009)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: TYCKOSON, D.A.: Enhancing access to information: building catalogs for the future; TYCKOSON, D.A.: The twenty-first century limited: desinging catalogs for the next century; DWYER, J.: Bibliographic records enhancement: from the drawing board to the catalog screen; SYRACUSE, R.O. u. R.K. POYER: Enhancing access to the library's collections: a view from an academic health center library; STUDWELL, W.E.: Of eggs and baskets: getting more access out of LC Subject Headings in an online environment; STEPHENS, I.E.: Getting more out of call numbers: displaying holdings, locations and circulation status; MICCO, M.: The next generation of online public access catalogs: a new look at subject access using hypermedia; SLOAN, B.G.: Remote access: design implications for the online catalog; ENGEL, G.: User instruction for access to catalogs and database on the Internet; BARNES, S. u. J. McCUE: Linking library records to bibliographic databases: an analysis of common data elements in BIOSIS, Agricola and the OPAC; HARWOOD, R.: Adding a nonlibrary campus collection to the library database; CARTER, K., H. OLSEN u. S. AQUILA: Bulk loading of records for microform sets into the online catalogue; DYKEMAN, A. u. J. ZIMMERMAN: The Georgia Institute of Technology Electronic Library: issues to consider; MOLHOLT, P. u. K. FORSYTHE: Opening up information access through the electronic catalog
  19. Barton, J.; Mak, L.: Old hopes, new possibilities : next-generation catalogues and the centralization of access (2012) 0.01 
    0.0067119785 = product of:
  0.060407806 = sum of:
    0.060407806 = weight(_text_:access in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060407806 = score(doc=5560,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5503745 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Next-generation catalogues can be viewed as the latest manifestation of a tendency in library catalogue history to strive for centralization of access to collections-a single portal for the discovery of library resources. Due to an increasing volume of published materials and the explosion of online information resources during the Internet age, the library does not currently provide centralized access to its various information silos, nor does it provide a user-friendly search and retrieval experience for users whose expectations are shaped by Google and other major commercial Web sites. Searching across library resources is a complicated task, bearing high-attention "transaction costs" for the user, which discourage the use of library resources. Libraries need access systems that minimize complexity, easing discovery and delivery of resources for user populations. Here, the authors review past efforts of centralization of access, consider the potential of next-generation catalogues in the context of this historical tendency toward centralization of access, and describe what goals underlie that centralization.
  20. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.01 
    0.0064668423 = product of:
  0.02910079 = sum of:
    0.023250975 = weight(_text_:access in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023250975 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.21183924 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.0058498154 = product of:
      0.017549446 = sum of:
        0.017549446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017549446 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 82
  • d 25
  • f 2
  • a 1
  • i 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 103
  • el 9
  • m 5
  • s 4
  • b 3
  • r 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications