Search (228 results, page 1 of 12)

0.08504569 = product of:
  0.21261421 = sum of:
    0.19681333 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19681333 = score(doc=5622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.853668 = fieldWeight in 5622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5622)
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 5622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=5622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5622)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.049356025 = product of:
  0.123390056 = sum of:
    0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098406665 = score(doc=3817,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.426834 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
    0.024983391 = weight(_text_:of in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024983391 = score(doc=3817,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.

Content

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Monash University in 2017 Faculty of Information Technology. Vgl.: https://figshare.com/articles/Models_of_the_bibliographic_universe/5216347.

Imprint

Melbourne : Monash University; Faculty of Information Technology

0.047103487 = product of:
  0.11775871 = sum of:
    0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098406665 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.426834 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=251,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.

Source

Library philosophy & Practice (Annual volume 2008), S.1-5

0.044836253 = product of:
  0.11209063 = sum of:
    0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098406665 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.426834 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
    0.013683967 = weight(_text_:of in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013683967 = score(doc=1428,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Library information searching lacks a descriptive theory which explains how a user decides to borrow one book and not another. Such theory should act as a reference framework against which cataloguing rules and the classification system can be measured, and should be based on 2 complementary perspectives, described in detail: modern classification theory, which explains what cataloguing and classification involve, and philosophy of science, which explains what happens when the user meets the catalogue record. Catalogue information must answer which work is described, and why this work on the subject is chosen. A descriptive theory is especially necessary for knowing what new information to add to the catalogue. Discusses this in a subsequent article

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Draft of a descriptive theory of catalogue searching / information retrieval

0.040906038 = product of:
  0.10226509 = sum of:
    0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084348574 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
    0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01791652 = score(doc=2586,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In pt.1, argued that modern classification theory and philosophy of science can help us understand problems of searching. In pt.2, discusses the problems in a more technical sense. considers thesauri and studies of of concept formation: choice of subject headings; definitions, and associations between subject headings; and the librarian as intermediary between the users and the library's texts. Tests the hypothesis that a catalogue record can be improved by adding information which makes the record more precise. If a record clearly indicates that a book is a typical or non-typical book on a subject, no improvement is necessary. discusses how and what new information to add and psychological barriers to this

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Draft of a descriptive theory of catalogue searching / information retrieval. Pt.2: what can concretely be done to improve searching in catalogue information

0.038941674 = product of:
  0.09735418 = sum of:
    0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070290476 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
    0.027063707 = weight(_text_:of in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027063707 = score(doc=2837,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a reconsideration of Michael Buckland's important question, "What is a document?", analysing the point and purpose of definitions of "document" and "documentation". Design/methodology/approach - Two philosophical notions of the point of definitions are contrasted: John Stuart Mill's concept of a "real" definition, purporting to specify the nature of the definiendum; and a concept of definition based upon a foundationalist philosophy of language. Both conceptions assume that a general, philosophical justification for using words as we do is always in order. This assumption is criticized by deploying Hilary Putnam's arguments against the orthodox Wittgensteinian interpretation of criteria governing the use of language. The example of the cabinets of curiosities of the sixteenth-century English and European virtuosi is developed to show how one might productively think about what documents might be, but without a definition of a document. Findings - Other than for specific, instrumentalist purposes (often appropriate for specific case studies), there is no general philosophical reason for asking, what is a document? There are good reasons for pursuing studies of documentation without the impediments of definitions of "document" or "documentation". Originality/value - The paper makes an original contribution to the new interest in documentation studies by providing conceptual resources for multiplying, rather than restricting, the areas of application of the concepts of documents and documentation.

Source

Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.2, S.291-303

0.028326744 = product of:
  0.07081686 = sum of:
    0.025538085 = weight(_text_:of in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025538085 = score(doc=3069,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
    0.045278773 = product of:
      0.090557545 = sum of:
        0.090557545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090557545 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.024326654 = product of:
  0.04054442 = sum of:
    0.0066520358 = product of:
      0.033260178 = sum of:
        0.033260178 = weight(_text_:problem in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033260178 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.022572692 = weight(_text_:of in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022572692 = score(doc=2647,freq=50.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
            50.0 = termFreq=50.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.011319693 = product of:
      0.022639386 = sum of:
        0.022639386 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022639386 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.

Content

1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.022966921 = product of:
  0.057417303 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=290,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
    0.033959076 = product of:
      0.06791815 = sum of:
        0.06791815 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791815 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

Footnote

Simultaneously published as The Future of the Union Catalogue: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Future of the Union Catalogue

0.021378292 = product of:
  0.05344573 = sum of:
    0.017484732 = weight(_text_:of in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017484732 = score(doc=5887,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
    0.035961 = product of:
      0.071922 = sum of:
        0.071922 = weight(_text_:mind in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071922 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.27584085 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

"I can't presume to know how other catalogers view the systems, information resources, and institutions with which they engage on a daily basis. David Paton gives us a glimpse in this issue of the affective experiences of bibliographers and catalogers of artists' books in South Africa, and it is clear that the emotional range among them is wide. What I can say is that catalogers' feelings and worldviews, whatever they may be, give the library its shape. I think we can agree that the librarians who constructed the Library of Congress Classification around 1900, Melvil Dewey, and the many classifiers around the world past and present, have had particular sets of desires around control and access and order. We all are asked to submit to those desires in our library work, as well as our own pursuit of knowledge and pleasure reading. And every decision regarding the aboutness of a book, or about where to place it within a particular discipline, takes place in a cataloger's affective and experiential world. While the classification provides the outlines, the catalogers color in the spaces with the books, based on their own readings of the book descriptions and their interpretations of the classification scheme. The decisions they make and the structures to which they are bound affect the circulation of books and their readers across the library. Indeed, some of the encounters will be unexpected, strange, frustrating, frightening, shame-inducing, awe-inspiring, and/or delightful. The emotional experiences of students described in Mabee and Fancher's article, as well as those of any visitor to the library, are all affected by classificatory design. One concern is that a library's ordering principles may reinforce or heighten already existing feelings of precarity or marginality. Because the classifications are hidden from patrons' view, it is difficult to measure the way the order affects a person's mind and body. That a person does not consciously register the associations does not mean that they are not affected."

0.019001076 = product of:
  0.04750269 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
    0.033959076 = product of:
      0.06791815 = sum of:
        0.06791815 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791815 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.018404907 = product of:
  0.046012264 = sum of:
    0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026202802 = score(doc=2825,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Measures of quality in the creation of library catalogues

0.017902408 = product of:
  0.044756018 = sum of:
    0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02211663 = score(doc=256,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.017902408 = product of:
  0.044756018 = sum of:
    0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02211663 = score(doc=266,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.017404316 = product of:
  0.043510787 = sum of:
    0.023701325 = weight(_text_:of in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023701325 = score(doc=600,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.016284827 = product of:
  0.040712066 = sum of:
    0.020902606 = weight(_text_:of in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020902606 = score(doc=5365,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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.

0.016240066 = product of:
  0.040600166 = sum of:
    0.016587472 = weight(_text_:of in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016587472 = score(doc=101,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.024012696 = product of:
      0.048025392 = sum of:
        0.048025392 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048025392 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.015311283 = product of:
  0.038278207 = sum of:
    0.01563882 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01563882 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.014990156 = product of:
  0.03747539 = sum of:
    0.017665926 = weight(_text_:of in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665926 = score(doc=106,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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

0.014453242 = product of:
  0.036133103 = sum of:
    0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019153563 = score(doc=54,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, 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=54)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23

Source

Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari