Search (1454 results, page 73 of 73)

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The author collected information about tables of content and index terms in 125 books borrowed by patrons in a medium-sized academic library. To learn how useful the term would be as subject terms in a library catalog, he determined which of these terms were the same as the words used by the patrons to describe the books. For 72,4% of the books assigned LCSH, the patron's term matched the LCheading. The patron's term matched the table of contents term for (1,3% of the books with tables of contents. If the catalog had included terms from the tables of contents and the indexes in addition to the LCSH, the success rate would have been 97,3%. One problem in using terms from books in a library catalog is that many books lack indexes and/or tables of context

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Many health science libraries are now in the planning stages for acquisition of local online catalogs and circulation systems. Whether turn-key or in-house, in most cases such systems will be based on machine-readable records, or archive tapes, produced as a by-product of automated cataloging. Because most libraries originally used these systems as a more efficient means to produce catalog cards, the usefulness of the records is questioned. A review of selected aspects of cataloging via OCLC reveals several areas in which local card production priorities have made the resultant archive tapes more difficult and costly to use as a machine-readable database. Some specific suggestions are given for altering input procedures to improve the usefulness of archive tapes. In conclusion, it is recommended that librarians re-examine local input procedures in light of cost-effective production of archive lapes to produce consistent bibliographic entries for local online catalogs, resource sharing projects and management information systems.

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The bibliographic component of the United States Newspaper Program comprises cooperative efforts to locate and catalog the more than 300,000 newspapers published in the U.S. and its territories since colonial times, and to enter bibliographic and holdings information about those titles into the CONSER data base. The attempt to gain bibliographic control over existing newspaper collections, as well as the attempt to gather and organize previously uncollected materials, has required procedural adaptations determined by a unique set of working conditions. The scale of the program has required specificity of goals and objectives, satisfying standards for inclusion of records in the national serials data base while maintaining reasonable economies. This paper outlines some of the mechanisms put in place to achieve that balance.

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Central to subject searching is the match between user vocabulary and the headings from Library of Congress Subject-Headings (LCSH) used in a library catalog. This paper evaluates previous matching studies, proposes a detailed list of matching categories, and tests LCSH in a study using these categories. Exact and partial match categories are defined for single LCSH and multiple LCSH matches to user expressions. One no-match category is included. Transaction logs from ORION, UCLA's online Information system, were used to collect user expressions for a comparison of LCSH and user language. Results show that single LCSH headings match user expressions exactly about 47% of the time; that single subject heading matches, including exact matches, comprise 74% of the total; that partial matches, to both single and multiple headings, comprise about 21% of the total; and that no match occurs 5% of the time.

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This book provides a coherent account of the theory of classification. It discusses the contributions made by theoreticians like E.C. Richardson, J.B. Brown, W. Hulme, W.C. Berwick Sayers, H.E. Bliss and S.R. Ranganathan. However, the theory put forward by S.R. Ranganathan predominates the whole book because his contribution is far more than anybody else's. Five major schemes - DDC, UDC, LCC, CC, and BC - have also been discussed. Library classification is a specialized area of study. In recent years, library classification has become a vast and complicated field of study using highly technical terminology. A special attempt has been made to provide descriptions as simple and direct as could be possible. To illustrate the theory of classification, large number of examples have been given from all major schemes so that an average student ould also grasp the concepts easily. This book has been especially written to meet the requirements of students, preparing for their library science, documentation, information science diplomas and degrees.

4.076838E-4 = product of:
  0.005707573 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=3632,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Indexes in general seek to provide a "key" to a body of literature intending to help the user in identifying, verifying, and/or locating individual or related items. The most common devices for collocation in indexes are authors' names and subjects. A different approach to collocating related items in an index is provided by a method called "citation indexing." Citation indexes attempt to link items through citations or references, in other works, by bringing together items cited in a particular work and the works citing a particular item. Citation indexing is based an the concept that there is a significant intellectual link between a document and each bibliographic item cited in it and that this link is useful to the scholar because an author's references to earlier writings identify relevant information to the subject of his current work. One of the major differences between the citation index and the traditional subject index is that the former, while listing current literature, also provides a retrospec tive view of past literature. While each issue of a traditional index is normally concerned only with the current literature, the citation index brings back retrospective literature in the form of cited references, thereby linking current scholarly works with earlier works. The advantages of the citation index have been considered to be its value as a tool for tracing the history of ideas or discoveries, for associating ideas between current and past work, and for evaluating works of individual authors or library collections. The concept of citation indexing is not new. It has been applied to legal literature since 1873 in a legal reference tool called Shepard's Citations. In the 1950s Eugene Garfield, a documentation consultant and founder and President of the Institute for Scientific Information (Philadelphia), developed the technique of citation indexing for scientific literature. This new application was facilitated by the availability of computer technology, resulting in a series of services: Science Citation Index (1955- ), Social Sciences Citation Index (1966- ), and the Arts & Humanities Index (1976- ). All three appear in printed versions and as machine-readable databases. In the following essay, the first in a series of articles and books elucidating the citation indexing system, Garfield traces the origin and beginning of this idea, its advantages, and the methods of preparing such indexes.

4.076838E-4 = product of:
  0.005707573 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=571,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.

3.8237238E-4 = product of:
  0.0053532133 = sum of:
    0.0053532133 = product of:
      0.016059639 = sum of:
        0.016059639 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016059639 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, 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=3624)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2849,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2849, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2849)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 38(1987) no.4, S.269-287

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 8926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=8926,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 8926, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=8926)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: AITCHISON, J.: Bliss and the thesaurus: the bibliographic classification of H.E. Bliss as a source of thesaurus terms and structure; DEVADASON, F.J.: Ranganathan's idea of facet analysis in action; FOSKETT, D.J.: The "personality" of the personaliyt facet; GOPINATH, M.A.: Relevance of Ranganathan's postulational approach in the identification of key concepts in the newly formed subjects and its implications to intellectual organisation of information; IYER, H.: Users preference of sequence of component ideas in subject representation: PMEST model; IYER, H.: Ask hypothesis and Ranganathan's fundamental categories; KASHYAP, M.M.: Ranganathan's postulational approach to classification: its development and impact; KUMAR, P.S.G.: Hidden roots of Colon Classification; LANGRIDGE, D.W.: Disciplines, forms and phenomena; NARASIMHAN, S.: Classification of oriental libraries with the case study of four regions; PARAMESWARAN, M.: The contribution of S.R. Ranganathan in the classification and cataloguing of ancient sanskrit classics; PRASAD, K.N.: Development of classification terminology: contributions of Professor S.R. Ranganathan; SANGAMESWARAN, S.V. u. M.V. GOPINATH: Design and development of depth version of Colon Classification for food technology; SANKARALINGAM, P., RAGHAVAN, K.S. u. P. GANGADHARA RAO: Structure and synthesis in DDC: an analysis; SEETHARAMA, S.: Compatibility issues affecting classification system: relevance of Ranganathan's normative principles; VOHRA, R.: Analytico-synthetic scheme of classification: its impact and relevance to modern thories of classification; DAS, S.P.: Chain procedure and precoordinate indexing; TEJOMURTY, A.: Chain procedure: the first model of pre-coordinate indexing; VINAYAK, K. u. K.K. TANEJA: Chain procedure and its influence on other precoordinate indexing systems; AUSTIN, D.: Standards in documentation: a subjective view

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information processing and management. 21(1985), S.11-26

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The first edition of this work, published in 1974, was designed for librarians. It contained an alphabetical listing of subject headings in six widely used sourdes: LCSH, Sears List, Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature, New York Times Index, PAIS, and Business Periodical Index. It was a useful and popular tool, but the rapid growth of information has resulted in new access tools, both print and online, and new subject headings. The second edition of Cross-reference index reflects this expansion. The editors have added headings from the Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors, the Thesaurus of of Psychological Index Terms, and the Subject Guide to IAC Databases to provide broader coverage of current affairs, social science, amd business. They have also redesigned the format to encourage use by the public as well as by professionals. The expansion has increased the number of main headings from 1.386 to 1.684, and the new format directs users up to 50 comparable or related terms rather than three. This creates easy access to 42.000 search terms. Cross-reference index is in two parts: an alphabetical index and a main entry section. Users consult the alphabetical section first. This refers them to one or more main-entry headings, which are in alphabetical order and numbered to correspond to the index. Under each main entry the related subject headings are arranged alphabetically in a chart format with eight columns, one for each source. An X in a colums shows that the particular source uses a given term. These charts are easy to use and make indexing quirks readily apparent. Under the entry Blood, for example, one can see that LC uses Blood-vessels, while Readers' Guide, Sears, and Psychinfo use Blood vessels. Under Broadcasting, Readers' Guide uses Television broadcasting--News, LC and IAC use Television broadcasting of news, while PAIS uses Television--news. Using this book will cut down on the frustration that often accompanies research. The diversity of the sources included will also provide several points of view, offerings users new approaches that they might not have considered. Cross-reference Index belongs in all reference collections that own most of the sources indexed.

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=3626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

One of the earliest works on the theory of classification appeared in a series of six chapters an the "Principles of Book Classification" published between October 1911 and May 1912 in the Library Association Record. In this publication, the author, E. Wyndham Hulme (1859-1954) whose career included twenty-five years as Librarian of the British Patent Office, set forth the fundamentals of classification as manifested in both the classed and the alphabetical catalogs. The work and the ideas contained therein have largely been forgotten. However, one phrase stands out and has been used frequently in the discussions of classification and indexing, particularly in reference to systems such as Library of Congress Classification, Dewey Decimal Classification, and Library of Congress Subject Headings. That phrase is "literary warrant"-meaning that the basis for classification is to be found in the actual published literature rather than abstract philosophical ideas or concepts in the universe of knowledge or the "order of nature and system of the sciences." To the extent that classification and indexing systems should be based upon existing literature rather than the universe of human knowledge, the concept of "literary warrant" defines systems used in library and information services, as distinguished from a purely philosophical classification. Library classification attempts to classify library materials-the records of knowledge-rather than knowledge itself; the establishment of a class or a heading for a subject is based an existing literature treating that subject. The following excerpt contains Hulme's definition of "literary warrant." Hulme first rejects the notion of using "the nature of the subject matter to be divided" as the basis for establishing headings, then he proceeds to propose the use of "literary warrant," that is, "an accurate survey and measurement of classes in literature," as the determinant.

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)