Search (171 results, page 1 of 9)

0.021895267 = product of:
  0.15326686 = sum of:
    0.15326686 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15326686 = score(doc=223,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.71602243 = fieldWeight in 223, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=223)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In 1994, the Library of Congress issued a rule interpretation to AACR2 detailing how uniform titles for choreographic works should be established. The value of the rule interpretation is discussed, and it is contrasted with prior practices. The origins of the concept behind the rule are traced back to the New York Public Library in the mid twentieth century, and its evolution into the current guidelines is delineated.

0.019352864 = product of:
  0.13547005 = sum of:
    0.13547005 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13547005 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.6328804 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article provides an interpretation of the structure of classification theory literature, from the late 19th Century to the present, by dividing it into four orders, and then describes the relationship between that and manuals for classification design.

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In the quest for cataloguing simplification a logical place to start is with areas that present complicated decision points for cataloguers. A potentially confusing interpretative task is the application of Library of Congress rule interpretation (LRCI) 25.10 dealing with the determination of an 'adequate' title. The authors propose the elimination of this rule, and instead call for a simple application of the concept of the differentiating uniform title, if applicable, thereby increasing access points and cataloguing speed, 2 key objectives of cataloguing simplification

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 6568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=6568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 6568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6568)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the advantages of treating computer files as serials for cataloguing purposes, and outlines methodologies for doing so. Examines general concerns in this area and addresses issues pertaining to both direct and remote access to the materials. Suggests tools and recources which can assist both cataloguers and non cataloguers in the interpretation of serial computer file records

0.0154822925 = product of:
  0.10837604 = sum of:
    0.10837604 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10837604 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.5063043 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD models propose user tasks as a way to address and categorize functions that a catalog should support. The user tasks are not harmonized among these models, but to do that, they should first be fully understood and analyzed, especially "select" and "identify." We decided to look at the FRBR user tasks from the perspective of interactive information retrieval (IIR). Several IIR models were reviewed and Ellis' and Belkin's models were chosen for further analysis and interpretation of FRBR "select" and "identify" tasks.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=1585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 1585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1585)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Highlights the striking parallels between S.R. Ranganathan' Classified Catalogue Rules (CCC) and the AACR2. Analyses the following concepts of the Canons of Cataloguing in CCC: ascertainability, prepotency, individualization, currency, consistency, laws of interpretation, principle of local variation, principle of osmosis, centralied cataloguing and printing of cards, and prenatal cataloguing. Studies the canon of individualization and its application to the names of persons, corporate bodies and conferences, georgraphic names, uniform titles, monographic series and serials. Analyses the concepts of classis, isolates, types of reference, book index entry, multi volumed book, union catalogue, national bibliography, indexing, tracing, and new kind of documents

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=5620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 5620, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5620)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

The author addresses issues regarding the cataloging of digital manifestations of works. The problem of how to catalog digitized rare books and electronic texts to facilitate access to works while distinguishing editions is discussed. Using digital versions of Blake's Book of Urizen, The Kelmscott Chaucer and Robinson Crusoe as examples, the article focuses on the way current cataloging aids or hinders access to works. Specific problems include: the non-uniform use of uniform titles; varying application of the Library of Congress Rule Interpretation (1.11A) concerning electronic reproductions; the lack of analysis at the work level in digital projects.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=481,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 481, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=481)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The motivation of decreasing cataloging costs by minimizing the role of the professional librarian in the cataloging process ha led to experiments in the application of expert systems to cataloging. Systems have been developed to accomplish specific elements of the cataloging process through human-machine interface or through automatic reading and interpretation of title pages. All of the systems developed thus far require a human cataloger to participate in, monitor, and/or complete the cataloging process. Furthermore, the expert systems developed for descriptive cataloging are based on the logic and rules of AACR2 and its dependence on title page information, neither of which may be relevant in their current form as cataloging comes to terms with electronic publishing and full-text retrieval of information.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=1916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 1916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1916)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In FRBR and FRAD, realization of a musical work through performance is unambiguously included as a type of expression when it involves music in the Western canon. There is room for interpretation, however, as to whether an improvisation in jazz or rock constitutes an expression, or a new work with each performance. Multiple expressions, particularly transcriptions, and related works suggest the potential usefulness of treating a jazz performance as a work. This article examines the question of boundaries between one work and another, and illustrates ways that the FRBR model might be applied to cataloging improvisations.

0.013547006 = product of:
  0.09482904 = sum of:
    0.09482904 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09482904 = score(doc=1977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.4430163 = fieldWeight in 1977, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1977)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The Library of Congress (LC) and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) interpretation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) 9.7 regarding gender when identifying persons reinforces regressive conceptions of gender identity. The rule instructs catalogers to record gender when identifying persons, and although RDA gives catalogers the flexibility to record more than two gender labels, LC limits Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) catalogers to a binary label: male, female, or not known. In this article, the authors challenge gender as a descriptive attribute for personal names, critique how LC is instructing NACO catalogers to record elements about gender, and make recommendations to address describing persons in LC authority records.

0.01161172 = product of:
  0.081282035 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=5337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 5337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5337)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Cartographic materials in digital format are now a reality in modern map libraries. Libraries have been reluctant to catalogue this type of material because of the lack of cataloguing rules and the highly technical nature of the information. This paper provides a status report on cataloguing rules for electronic cartographic materials, with particular emphasis on the new fields that have been created in USMARC to accommodate the special requirements for this material. For each part of the bibliographic description, both what current cataloguing rules allow and what is being recommended as part of the revision to Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2 is presented. The paper also looks at what is required to get started and identifies resource tools.

0.01161172 = product of:
  0.081282035 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=5851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 5851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5851)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper discusses how the AustLit: Australian Literature Gateway's interpretation, enhancement and implementation of the International Federation of Library Association's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR Final Report 1998) model is meeting the needs of Australian literature scholars for accurate bibliographic representation of the histories of literary texts. It also explores how the AustLit Gateway's underpinning research principles, which are based on the tradition of scholarly enumerative and descriptive bibliography, with enhancements from analytical bibliography and literary biography, have impacted upon our implementation of the FRBR model. The major enhancement or alteration to the model is the use of enhanced manifestations, which allow the full representation of all agents' contributions to be shown in a highly granular format by enabling creation events to be incorporated at all levels of the Work, Expression and Manifestation nexus.

0.01161172 = product of:
  0.081282035 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=5853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 5853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5853)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this paper, the FRBR model is approached through Umberto Eco's semiotic analysis of the translation notion as developed in his Dire quasi la stessa cosa: esperienze di traduzione. Eco's taxonomy of forms of interpretation is used as a basis for a tentative abstract definition of what constitutes a mere expression of a given musical work and what constitutes a new, distinct musical work. The issues of aggregates of musical works, fragments of musical works, and works of vocal music, are also addressed. FRBR can be used as a basis for a model for the complex processes involved in the production and reception of musical works. And FRBR highlights complex bibliographic relationships that put musical works at the very center of myriads of interrelated systems that make up the catalog, which is viewed as a set of circular objects such as atoms or solar systems rather than as a straight linear listing.

0.009676432 = product of:
  0.067735024 = sum of:
    0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067735024 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 527, 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=527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

OCLC systems and services. 9(1993) no.3, S.20-22

0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 4397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=4397,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4397, 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=4397)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Serials librarian. 22(1992), S.371-391

0.005062908 = product of:
  0.035440356 = sum of:
    0.035440356 = product of:
      0.07088071 = sum of:
        0.07088071 = weight(_text_:22 in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088071 = score(doc=2857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 13(1991) no.2, S.3-22

0.005062908 = product of:
  0.035440356 = sum of:
    0.035440356 = product of:
      0.07088071 = sum of:
        0.07088071 = weight(_text_:22 in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088071 = score(doc=2900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.005062908 = product of:
  0.035440356 = sum of:
    0.035440356 = product of:
      0.07088071 = sum of:
        0.07088071 = weight(_text_:22 in 6339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088071 = score(doc=6339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

18. 8.2002 17:22:13