Search (114 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. McCathieNevile, C.; Méndez Rodríguez, E.M.: Library cards for the 21st century (2006) 0.06
    0.060518708 = product of:
      0.15129676 = sum of:
        0.118616216 = weight(_text_:semantic in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118616216 = score(doc=240,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.616327 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
        0.03268054 = product of:
          0.06536108 = sum of:
            0.06536108 = weight(_text_:web in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06536108 = score(doc=240,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents several reflections on the traditional card catalogues and RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is "the" standard for creating the Semantic Web. This work grew out of discussion between the authors after Working Group on Metadata Schemes meeting held at IFLA conference in Buenos Aires (2004). The paper provides an overview of RDF from the perspective of cataloguers, catalogues and library cards. The central theme is the discussion of resource description as a discipline that could be based on RDF. RDF is explained as a very simple grammar, using metadata and ontologies to semantic search and access. RDF Knitting the Semantic Web Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Volume 43, Numbers 3/4 has the ability to enhance 21st century libraries and metadata interoperability in digital libraries, while maintaining the expressive power that was available to librarians when catalogues were physical artefacts.
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as Knitting the Semantic Web
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  2. Clarke, R.I.: Breaking records : the history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data (2015) 0.05
    0.04821678 = product of:
      0.120541945 = sum of:
        0.08752273 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08752273 = score(doc=1877,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.45476598 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
        0.03301921 = product of:
          0.06603842 = sum of:
            0.06603842 = weight(_text_:web in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06603842 = score(doc=1877,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.
  3. Schäfer, D.: Konzeption, prototypische Implementierung und Evaluierung eines RDF-basierten Bibliothekskatalogs für Online-Dissertationen (2008) 0.04
    0.04132867 = product of:
      0.10332167 = sum of:
        0.075019486 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075019486 = score(doc=2293,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.38979942 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
        0.028302183 = product of:
          0.056604367 = sum of:
            0.056604367 = weight(_text_:web in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056604367 = score(doc=2293,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    In dieser Diplomarbeit geht es um die semantische Suche innerhalb bibliothekarischer Metadaten. Die Umsetzung dieses Vorhabens wird ermöglichst durch die Entwicklung in dem Bereich des Semantischen Webs, die durch das W3C Semantic Web Activity vorangetrieben wird. Diese Arbeit basiert auf den Empfehlungen und Arbeitsentwürfen unterschiedlicher Technologien dieser Gruppe, deren Kombination schließlich ein Semantisches Web ermöglicht. Da die Thematik des Semantischen Webs schwer zu greifen ist, werden die Komponenten, die in dieser Arbeit eine Rolle spielen, ausführlich erkäutert. Im Anschluss daran werden die Anforderungen an eine semantische Suche innerhalb bibliothekarischer Metadaten dargestellt, um dann ein Konzept zur Lösung zu erläutern. Die Zielsetzung dieser Arbeit ist die Umsetzung der Konzepte des Semantischen Webs innerhalb einer prototypischen Implementierung mit einem umfangreichen Datensatz. Hier wurden die Metadaten der elektronischen Dissertationen innerhalb der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek zusammen mit Daten eines Klassifikationssystems verwendet.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  4. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03
    0.032894712 = product of:
      0.082236774 = sum of:
        0.03536452 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03536452 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18375319 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
        0.046872254 = sum of:
          0.021787029 = weight(_text_:web in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.021787029 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04628742 = queryNorm
              0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
          0.025085226 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.025085226 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04628742 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
  5. Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century (2011) 0.03
    0.03126963 = product of:
      0.052116044 = sum of:
        0.0140383355 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0140383355 = score(doc=4530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.10026272 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
        0.02652339 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02652339 = score(doc=4530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.1378149 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
        0.011554317 = product of:
          0.023108633 = sum of:
            0.023108633 = weight(_text_:web in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023108633 = score(doc=4530,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.15297705 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in Mitt VÖB 64(2011) H.1, S.151-153 (S. Breitling): "Wie sieht die Rolle der Katalogisierung im 21. Jahrhundert aus? In diversen Blogs und Mailinglisten wird darüber seit geraumer Zeit diskutiert. Der Bereich Katalogisierung befindet sich in einer Phase tiefgreifenden Wandels, ausgelöst durch eine Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen veränderte Nutzererwartungen bei der Recherche und die wachsende Menge an neuen zu katalogisierenden Materialien (e-Books, Web-Ressourcen etc.) und Formaten nur zwei Aspekte darstellen. Das technische Umfeld wird nicht zuletzt durch fortgeschrittene Möglichkeiten im Bereich Retrieval und Präsentation geprägt. Wie schafft man es, dass Katalogisierung als Teil des gesamten Bibliothekswesens relevant und zeitgemäß bleibt? Welche der in Jahrzehnten Katalogisierungspraxis erarbeiteten Standards sind erhaltenswert, und welche sind im Hinblick auf den Fortschritt der IT und ein mögliches Semantic Web vielleicht gar nicht mehr nötig oder müssen an die Gegebenheiten angepasst werden? Mit diesen und anderen Fragen beschäftigt sich die Aufsatzsammlung "Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century". In der Community bekannte Personen wie Martha Yee, Christine Schwartz oder James Weinheimer kommen zu Wort, aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum Bernhard Eversberg, Entwickler des Bibliothekssystems Allegro.
  6. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.03
    0.029986907 = product of:
      0.074967265 = sum of:
        0.056153342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056153342 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
        0.01881392 = product of:
          0.03762784 = sum of:
            0.03762784 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03762784 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.03
    0.027463714 = product of:
      0.13731857 = sum of:
        0.13731857 = sum of:
          0.087148115 = weight(_text_:web in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.087148115 = score(doc=2905,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04628742 = queryNorm
              0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
          0.05017045 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.05017045 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04628742 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Der Artikel betrachtet anhand einer Studie zum Benutzerverhalten bei der Online-Katalogrecherche den gegenwärtigen Stellenwert und das zukünftige Potential der Web-OPACs. Dabei werden zunächst die Ergebnisse einer quantitativen Logfile-Analyse sowie qualitativer Benutzertests erörtert, bevor aktuelle Entwicklungen der Webtechnologie, die unter den Schlagworten Web 2.0 und Web 3.0 propagiert werden, im Zusammenhang mit der Online-Recherche und der Entwicklung neuartiger Suchverfahren kurz diskutiert werden.
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
  8. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.03
    0.027309487 = product of:
      0.068273716 = sum of:
        0.04632414 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04632414 = score(doc=5365,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
        0.021949572 = product of:
          0.043899145 = sum of:
            0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043899145 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  9. Voss, J.: LibraryThing : Web 2.0 für Literaturfreunde und Bibliotheken (2007) 0.03
    0.026005952 = product of:
      0.06501488 = sum of:
        0.022102825 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022102825 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.114845745 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
        0.04291205 = sum of:
          0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027233787 = score(doc=1847,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04628742 = queryNorm
              0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
          0.015678266 = weight(_text_:22 in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.015678266 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04628742 = queryNorm
              0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1847, 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=1847)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Content
    Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken Bereits früh setzte sich Tim Spalding für eine Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken ein. Zum Eintragen von neuen Büchern in LibraryThing können zahlreiche Bibliothekskataloge ausgewählt werden, die via Z39.50 eingebunden werden - seit Oktober 2006 ist auch der GBV dabei. Im April 2007 veröffentlichte Tim Spalding mit LibraryThing for Libraries ein Reihe von Webservices, die Bibliotheken in ihre OPACs einbinden können.4 Ein Webservice ist eine Funktion, die von anderen Programmen über das Web aufgerufen werden kann und Daten zurückliefert. Bereits seit Juni 2006 können über verschiedene offene LibraryThing-Webservices unter Anderem zu einer gegebenen ISBN die Sprache und eine Liste von ISBNs anderer Auflagen und Übersetzungen ermittelt werden, die zum gleichen Werk gehören (thinglSBN). Damit setzt LibraryThing praktisch einen Teil der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) um, die in bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Fachkreisen bereits seit Anfang der 1990er diskutiert werden, aber bislang nicht so Recht ihre Umsetzung in Katalogen gefunden haben. Die Information darüber, welche Bücher zum gleichen Werk gehören, wird von der LibraryThing-Community bereitgestellt; jeder Benutzer kann einzelne Ausgaben mit einem Klick zusammenführen oder wieder trennen. Vergleiche mit dem ähnlichen Dienst xISBN von OCLC zeigen, dass sich thinglSBN und xISBN gut ergänzen, allerdings bietet LibraryThing seinen Webservice im Gegensatz zu OCLC kostenlos an. Neben Empfehlungen von verwandten Büchern ist es im Rahmen von LibraryThing for Libraries auch möglich, die von den Nutzern vergebenen Tags in den eigenen Katalog einzubinden. Ein Nachteil dabei ist allerdings die bisherige Übermacht der englischen Sprache und dass nur selbständige Titel mit ISBN berücksichtigt werden. Die VZG prüft derzeit, in welcher Form LibraryThing for Libraries am besten in GBV-Bibliotheken umgesetzt werden kann. Es spricht allerdings für jede einzelne Bibliothek nichts dagegen, schon jetzt damit zu experimentieren, wie der eigene OPAC mit zusätzlichen Links und Tags von LibraryThing aussehen könnte. Darüber hinaus können sich auch Bibliotheken mit einem eigenen Zugang als Nutzer in LibraryThing beteiligen. So stellt beispielsweise die Stadtbücherei Nordenham bereits seit Ende 2005 ihre Neuzugänge im Erwachsenenbestand in einer Sammlung bei LibraryThing ein.
    Beispiel für die Anwendung von LibraryThing for Libraries im Katalog des Waterford Institute of Technology (): Zu einer ISBN werden auf Basis der in LibraryThing gesammelten Daten andere Auflagen und Übersetzungen, ähnliche Bücher und Tags eingeblendet. Soziale Software lebt vom Mitmachen Vieles spricht dafür, dass LibraryThing auf dem besten Weg ist, sich zu einem der wichtigsten Web 2.0-Dienste für die Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken zu entwickeln. Wie schon bei Wikipedia gibt es allerdings noch viel zu oft Berührungsängste und die Vorstellung, dass sich diese Dienste erst durch Hilfe von Außen in der eigenen Einrichtung einführen ließen. Soziale Software lebt jedoch von der Zusammenarbeit und dem freien Austausch von Gedanken und Informationen. Deshalb hilft nur eins: Ausprobieren und Mitmachen. Ebenso wie Wikipedia schwer zu beurteilen ist, ohne selbst mit anderen Wikipedianern einen Artikel erstellt und diskutiert zu haben, erschließt sich LibraryThing erst vollständig durch eine eigene dort angelegte Büchersammlung. Zum Kennenlernen reicht der kostenlose Zugang und mit 15 $ Jahresgebühr können auch Bibliotheken problemlos bis zu 5.000 Medieneinheiten pro Sammlung einstellen. Wenn Sie erstmal mehr mit Library-Thing vertraut sind, werden Ihnen sicherlich weitere Einsatzmöglichkeiten für Ihre Einrichtung und deren Nutzer einfallen. LibraryThing entwickelt sich beständig weiter und dürfte noch für einige Überraschungen gut sein.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 10:36:23
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  10. Serra, E.: Biblos: el projecte de conversion retrospectiva de la Bilioteca de Catalunya (1998) 0.02
    0.023689037 = product of:
      0.05922259 = sum of:
        0.03743556 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03743556 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
        0.021787029 = product of:
          0.043574058 = sum of:
            0.043574058 = weight(_text_:web in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043574058 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Explains the Biblos project for the retrospective conversion of the catalogues of the Biblioteca de Catalunya. This consists of the scanning of the catalogue cards, the retrieval of the images via the Web, and the subsequent codification of the information into MARC format. Describes the objectives, methodology, processes and other factors contributing to its fulfilment
  11. Solis, A.Q.; Navarrete, O.A.: Medidas de calidad en la creacion de catalogos de bibliotecas (1998) 0.02
    0.021882275 = product of:
      0.054705687 = sum of:
        0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032756116 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
        0.021949572 = product of:
          0.043899145 = sum of:
            0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043899145 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2825, 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=2825)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A discussion of the importance of clear cataloguing policies and routines as the basis of quality control, in relation to the methods used in the College of Mexico Library. The fundamental principle is to prevent errors occuring rather than to correct them subsequently. Indices of quality and effiency in relation to errors which do and do not affect retrieval, established through monthly review of samples of the work of each cataloguer, are used to monitor activities and ensure high standards. This process, essentially collaborative, promotes an overall culture of quality
    Date
    30. 1.1999 19:22:45
  12. Randall, N.B.: Spelling errors in the database : shadow or substance? (1999) 0.02
    0.021882275 = product of:
      0.054705687 = sum of:
        0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032756116 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
        0.021949572 = product of:
          0.043899145 = sum of:
            0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043899145 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
  13. Hillmann, D.I.: "Parallel universes" or meaningful relationships : envisioning a future for the OPAC and the net (1996) 0.02
    0.018748902 = product of:
      0.09374451 = sum of:
        0.09374451 = sum of:
          0.043574058 = weight(_text_:web in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043574058 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04628742 = queryNorm
              0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
          0.05017045 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.05017045 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.04628742 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Over the past year, innumerable discussions on the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the newly burgeoning World WideWeb have occured in many libraries and in virtually every library related discussion list. Rumors and speculation abound, some insisting that SGML will replace USMARC "soon," others maintaining that OPACs that haven't migrated to the Web will go the way of the dinosaurs.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103
  14. Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.02
    0.018503213 = product of:
      0.046258032 = sum of:
        0.03536452 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03536452 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18375319 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
        0.010893514 = product of:
          0.021787029 = sum of:
            0.021787029 = weight(_text_:web in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021787029 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    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.
  15. Crosnier, H. Le: Nouveaux besoins, nouveaux services, nouveaux catalogues (1997) 0.02
    0.017766777 = product of:
      0.04441694 = sum of:
        0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028076671 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
        0.01634027 = product of:
          0.03268054 = sum of:
            0.03268054 = weight(_text_:web in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03268054 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    For users, the catalogue is a tool to assist in satisfying information demands. Bibliographic databases raise the question of how to describe a document to facilitate retrieval. Information technology development have led to the creation of hypercatalogues, affording links to related material and other services. This necessitates improved descriptive cataloguing and also improved search interfaces to simplify user manipulation, along the lines of the Web. Given the massive output of electronic documents, the librarian's role is to select, prioritise and organise. The information society and its consequent economic consequences for the social organisation of knowledge raise the prospect of marginalisation of libraries. Catalogues enable access to knowledge as a public good, but this access must be democratic
  16. Barton, J.; Mak, L.: Old hopes, new possibilities : next-generation catalogues and the centralization of access (2012) 0.02
    0.017766777 = product of:
      0.04441694 = sum of:
        0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028076671 = score(doc=5560,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
        0.01634027 = product of:
          0.03268054 = sum of:
            0.03268054 = weight(_text_:web in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03268054 = score(doc=5560,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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.
  17. Han, M.-J.: New discovery services and library bibliographic control (2012) 0.02
    0.017766777 = product of:
      0.04441694 = sum of:
        0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028076671 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
        0.01634027 = product of:
          0.03268054 = sum of:
            0.03268054 = weight(_text_:web in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03268054 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    To improve resource discovery and retrieval, libraries have implemented new discovery services, such as next generation catalogues, federated search, and Web-scale discovery, in addition to their traditional integrated library systems. These new discovery services greatly improve the user experience by utilizing existing cataloguing records housed within the library system or in combination with metadata from other sources, both in and outside of libraries. However, to maximize the functionality of these discovery services, libraries must reexamine current cataloguing practices and the way libraries control the bibliographic description to better serve the user's needs. This report discusses how new discovery services use the cataloguing records and the challenges that libraries encounter in bibliographic control to work with new discovery services, including the quality of cataloguing records, granular levels of bibliographic description, and integration of user-generated metadata into the cataloguing records. Each of these aspects requires further discussion.
  18. Lügger, J.: Neustart für Bibliotheken ins Informationszeitalter (2006) 0.02
    0.017061768 = product of:
      0.04265442 = sum of:
        0.023397226 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023397226 = score(doc=889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
        0.019257195 = product of:
          0.03851439 = sum of:
            0.03851439 = weight(_text_:web in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03851439 = score(doc=889,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = queryNorm
                0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Wir erleben zu Beginn des aufkommenden Informationszeitalters mit dem Siegeszug von Google und anderen Internet-Technologien einen Wandel im Verhalten von Wissenschaftlern und Studenten, der mit dem Einsatz von Google Scholar und Google Book Search einem Paradigmenwechsel für Bibliotheken und Informationsversorger gleichkommt. Der Artikel untersucht die technischen Hintergründe für den Erfolg dieser besonderen Art des Information Retrievals: Fulltext Indexing und Citation Ranking als besondere Form des Information Mining. Er diskutiert Stärken und auch Schwächen des Google-Ansatzes. Der Autor stellt sich auch der Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen es möglich ist, ein zu Google Scholar und der Google Book Search konkurrenzfähiges Retrieval in der Landschaft der Bibliotheken und Bibliotheksverbünde zu errichten. Die These ist, dass dieses unter Einsatz des Open Source Indexierers Lucene und des Web-Robots Nutch möglich ist. Bibliotheken können durch gezielten Einsatz solcher Internet-Technologien dem Nutzer die Leistungen, welche Google uns mit seinen Tools im Visible Web und mit Referenzen auf Citations in der Welt der Literatur zur Verfügung stellt, in vergleichbarer Art auch für ihre eigenen durch Lizenzen geschützten digitalen Journale und ihre speziellen lokal verfügbaren Ressourcen, auf die Internet-Suchmaschinen keine Zugriff haben, anbieten. Es besteht die Hoffnung, dass Nutzer dann nicht - wie in einer kürzlich erschienenen Studie des OCLC konstatiert - überwiegend im Internet verbleiben, sondern bei ihrer Suche auch den Weg zu den Angeboten der örtlichen Bibliothek attraktiv finden.
  19. Stoker, D.: Computer cataloguing in retrospect (1997) 0.02
    0.015630199 = product of:
      0.039075494 = sum of:
        0.023397226 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023397226 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
        0.015678266 = product of:
          0.031356532 = sum of:
            0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031356532 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04628742 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
  20. Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017) 0.02
    0.015313287 = product of:
      0.076566435 = sum of:
        0.076566435 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076566435 = score(doc=3871,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.39783734 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 70
  • d 38
  • sp 2
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 99
  • el 8
  • m 7
  • b 3
  • r 3
  • s 3
  • x 3
  • More… Less…