Search (29 results, page 2 of 2)

7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=3667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

There seems to be general agreement in the library community that a predictably ordered system of classification, leading to easy browsability of a library collection either in the stacks or in an OPAC, is an indispensible requirement for the kind of access patrons have come to expect, and for the reasonable success of the searching strategies they normally use. In this vein, examines the intrinsic value of browsing. In addition, with the help of some rough data compiled during a test conducted at Cornell University in the spring of 1994, estimates the cost of maintaining the collocative and alphabetical integrity of shelflist files for works by or about individual literary authors

7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 4697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=4697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 4697, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4697)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes plans to automate the LoC shelf list which consists of around 13.335.000 3x5 inch cards. The card shelf list records the holdings and location information for all monographs and some serial receiving LC classification and is used to determine the correct filing position and unique full card number for new materials so that they are properly shelved within the existing collection. A Shelflist Task Group, set up in Oct. 94, has recommended a retrospective conversion of the existing card shelf list to an online system which would support a call number assignment and maintenance and online inventory control. The benefits of an online shelf list are outlined and the outlook appears positive for a commitment on the part of the library to automate both the process of shelflisting and the shelf list as an inventory control

7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=1973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In the recent years, several libraries in the United States have been experimenting with Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), the classification system of the book industry, as an alternative to the Dewey Decimal Classification. Although rarely discussed, these cases of implementation of BISAC arguably resemble other past cases of replacement of traditional classifications that received the name of reader-interest classifications. In this article, a comparison of the BISAC cases to the previous cases of reader-interest classifications is taken in order to determine if the current application of BISAC to libraries is susceptible to the same problems, dangers, and ends as occurred in the past.

7.323784E-4 = product of:
  0.0051266486 = sum of:
    0.0051266486 = product of:
      0.025633242 = sum of:
        0.025633242 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025633242 = score(doc=507,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 507, 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=507)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Cataloging policy at the Alabama University Libraries allows the acceptance of LCC call numbers from OCLC cataloguing copy into the local database without shelflisting. Reports results of a study to measure error rates for locally unshelflisted samples and a control group of locally assigned and shelflisted call numbers to determine whether this policy produces disarrangement of the local online shelflist. Results show no significant differences between samples, indicating that the cataloguer's task of local shelflisting is not a cost effective use of their time. Analysis of the error data suggests that the types of disorder created by shelflisting errors would not impede the retrieval of items while subject browsing, but further study is needed to confirm this

6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 340, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=340)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

For a variety of reasons, reclassification was a popular project in libraries in the 1960s. Although such projects have faded from the limelight, some of the reasons for doing them remain valid today, i.e., a need to cut processing costs, participation in cooperative ventures, the inconvenience caused by working with a collection split between two classification systems, and continuing changes in the Dewey schedules. This article compares the steps needed for reclassifying in a manual environment with those required when the library has an in-house computer system. The comparison shows how using the latter makes a reclassification project more feasible than it would be in a totally manual library. The article also discusses various issues associated with reclassification in an automated environment such as the problem posed by a frozen public catalog and the combining of reclassification and conversion projects.

6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 2184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=2184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2184)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The Upper Austrian Federal State Library in Linz was the first library in Austria that chose the DDC as its shelf classification system. My aim is to outline the reasons for and the way that led to that decision as well as its background. The library which was founded in 1774 currently holds about 400.000 items and was up to now storing the majority of its collections in closed stacks. With the current complete reconstruction and enlargement of the library building (which was erected in 1930/31, reopening planned in September 2009) there is the historical chance to completely reorganize the library and make the transition to open access shelving.

6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 49) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=49,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 49, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=49)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Der Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek Dortmund stellt nicht nur einen Verfügbarkeitsraum für alle relevanten Informationen dar, vielmehr soll er darüber hinaus ein Navigationsraum für eine zeitgemäße inhaltliche Suche sein. Die Aufgabe war daher, eine automatisierte Lösung mit einer maximalen Abdeckung der eigenen Bestände zu finden, die für möglichst viele Fächer eine anerkannte Systematik bereitstellt.Mittels der unter einer offenen Lizenz veröffentlichten CultureGraph-Daten der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek wurde eine navigationsfähige Systematik auf Basis der Regensburger Verbundklassifikation entwickelt, aus der heraus sowohl auf die gedruckt als auch auf die elektronisch verfügbaren Bestände der Universitätsbibliothek (UB) zugegriffen werden kann. Ferner wurde eine direkte Einbindung in das Discovery-System realisiert, in der die Systematik mit anderen Navigatoren und Suchfiltern kombiniert werden kann. Das so entstandene Suchinstrument führt dazu, dass in der UB Dortmund künftig auf die systematische Buchaufstellung verzichtet werden kann.

4.5370017E-4 = product of:
  0.003175901 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The ongoing project to revise the arrangement of the open shelves library collections occasioned a historiographic account of the implementation phases of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC), subclasses B-BJ - Philosophy and Psychology, at the Library of the Department of Philosophy of the University of Padua (Italy). The schema was adopted as a collection shelving and location device since the Library institution in 1997. The LCC international acknowledgement and the neutral framework of the schema have undoubtedly played a role of driving factors at the first stage of the selection process. However, the implementation of the classification scheme had to consider critical issues like the shortage of the library area, the selection criteria of the appropriate bibliographic material, as well as the effort to settle and tailor the original schema to the specific needs of the library collections and its end-users. The purpose of this paper is twofold: from one hand, we aim to examine in detail each stage of the implementation project in order to provide a preliminary impact evaluation of the classification schema both on the collections management and development and on the research practices of the local users community; from the other, we intend to highlight the principal factors that have implied a sort of declassification process of the system itself. In conclusion, we argue that the declassification of library collections can be read, from a bottom-up perspective, as index of vitality of the collections themselves, as well as a valuable basis for planning the next steps of the Library project.

4.5370017E-4 = product of:
  0.003175901 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 3274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=3274,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 3274, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3274)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In the late seventies, I was asked to work on classifying our Philosophy (and Psychology) collections, which were still located partly in the stacks and partly in the so-called Seminars-a traditional didactic and research structure of our School-where the books were mostly ordered by format or collection title. As often happens, my task was not completely free of restrictions: the general "new policy" of the entire Library was oriented toward accomplishing an open-shelf decimal classification, and the first step was to avoid an overly complicated schema, as this would probably have rendered more difficult the task of the end users, that is, our students but mainly our teaching staff. At the Scuola Normale Superiore, where historicism has always had an illustrious though somewhat cumbersome tradition (I quote only two philosophers and/or historians of Philosophy: Giovanni Gentile and Eugenio Garin), ordering the Philosophy collection- with its divisions, topics, geographical notations, chronological tables et similia-strictly by the Dewey decimal system might have been unthinkable. A second requirement was to designate a main location to the large collection of the often "complete works" of the philosophical Tradition. This way, the ideal Reader, foreseen to linger for hours in the newly restored library building of the Palazzo della Gherardesca, could easily access the reservoir of the great texts, which were to be followed on the shelves by the secondary literature ad auctorem. All in all, the implicit message to our students and scholars was to be the virtuous necessity of finding, ready on the shelves, the substantial core of the textual Tradition.