Search (127 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Kemp, R.: Catalog/cataloging changes and Web 2.0 functionality : new directions for serials (2008) 0.05 
    0.047235887 = product of:
  0.11808972 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=2254,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
    0.11134702 = weight(_text_:91 in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11134702 = score(doc=2254,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.43095312 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article presents an overview of some of the important recent developments in cataloging theory and practice and online catalog design. Changes in cataloging theory and practice include the incorporation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records principles into catalogs, the new Resource Description and Access cataloging manual, and the new CONSER Standard Record. Web 2.0 functionalities and advances in search technology and results displays are influencing online catalog design. The paper ends with hypothetical scenarios in which a catalog, enhanced by the developments described, fulfills the tasks of finding serials articles and titles.
    Source
    Serials librarian. 53(2008) no.4, S.91-112
    Type
    a
  2. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.03 
    0.031154891 = product of:
  0.07788723 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=101,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.069713846 = sum of:
      0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016407004 = score(doc=101,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.05330684 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05330684 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = 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
    Type
    a
  3. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.03 
    0.030330315 = product of:
  0.07582579 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.06811985 = sum of:
      0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017861681 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050258167 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = 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
    Type
    a
  4. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.03 
    0.027334882 = product of:
  0.0683372 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
    0.06288828 = sum of:
      0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012630116 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
      0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050258167 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = 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
    Type
    a
  5. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.03 
    0.026819343 = product of:
  0.067048356 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=54,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
    0.058874972 = sum of:
      0.02118135 = weight(_text_:information in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02118135 = score(doc=54,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
      0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037693623 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = 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
    Type
    a
  6. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.02 
    0.016798373 = product of:
  0.04199593 = sum of:
    0.010551793 = weight(_text_:a in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010551793 = score(doc=2647,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.03144414 = sum of:
      0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006315058 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.025129084 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025129084 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
    Type
    a
  7. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.02 
    0.016023858 = product of:
  0.04005964 = sum of:
    0.008615503 = weight(_text_:a in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008615503 = score(doc=2666,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.03144414 = sum of:
      0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006315058 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.025129084 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025129084 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
    Type
    a
  8. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.02 
    0.015289003 = product of:
  0.038222507 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
    0.031411353 = product of:
      0.06282271 = sum of:
        0.06282271 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06282271 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  9. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.01 
    0.012609425 = product of:
  0.031523563 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=5365,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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.
    Type
    a
  10. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.01 
    0.012231203 = product of:
  0.030578006 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  11. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.01 
    0.012231203 = product of:
  0.030578006 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
    Type
    a
  12. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.011193973 = product of:
  0.027984932 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=2264,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  13. Erdei, K.: Kein Umzug für Zettel : Die digitalisierten Kataloge im Neubau der UB Kiel (2001) 0.01 
    0.010702303 = product of:
  0.026755756 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5777)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5777, 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=5777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    28. 4.2001 16:49:22
    Type
    a
  14. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01 
    0.010702303 = product of:
  0.026755756 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  15. Matthews, J.: ¬The value of information in library catalogs (2000) 0.01 
    0.010065834 = product of:
  0.025164586 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
    0.015628971 = product of:
      0.031257942 = sum of:
        0.031257942 = weight(_text_:information in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031257942 = score(doc=659,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Information outlook. 4(2000) no.7, S.18-24
    Type
    a
  16. Umstätter, W.; Wagner-Döbler, R.; Löffler, K.: Einführung in die Katalogkunde : Vom Zettelkatalog zur Suchmaschine (2005) 0.01 
    0.009196096 = product of:
  0.02299024 = sum of:
    0.0017027882 = weight(_text_:a in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017027882 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.03184872 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
    0.021287452 = sum of:
      0.0055817757 = weight(_text_:information in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0055817757 = score(doc=4880,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.068573356 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
      0.015705677 = weight(_text_:22 in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015705677 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Diese Einführung in die moderne Katalogkunde ist nicht nur für angehende Bibliothekare und Angehörige informationsbezogener Berufe gedacht, sie gilt auch allen interessierten Laien, die sich für eine professionelle Nutzung von Katalogen, insbesondere solchen in Form von Online-Datenbanken, im Bibliotheksbereich interessieren. Die Bibliothek ist eine Einrichtung zur Orientierung in einer Publikationsflut; aber nicht nur in Form einer «Positiv-Auswahl»: Sie stellt auch Information bereit, die man nach kurzer Prüfung verwirft oder die im Laufe des wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts falsifiziert wurde. Sie ist so auch Staumauer zur Eindämmung der Informationsüberflutung des Einzelnen, unabhängig vom aktuellen Nachfrage- oder Marktgeschehen. Insofern war sie auch immer eine Abwehr gegen Schund - und sei es nur durch dessen erbarmungsloser Dokumentation, und Bestandteil eines Controlling gegen schlechte und überflüssige Wissenschaft. Es ist daher auch die zentrale Aufgabe einer Katalogisierung, dazu beizutragen. Noch deutlicher gesagt, ist es weniger die Aufgabe der Bibliothekskataloge, uns zu zeigen, was wir alles lesen können, das sind allein etwa 100 Mio. verschiedene Buchtitel, es ist vielmehr ihre Aufgabe uns zu zeigen, was wir alles nicht lesen müssen, weil es bessere Quellen gibt. Diese Zeitersparnis ist insbesondere im Wettbewerb um das neu zu entdeckende Wissen in der Wissenschaft das höchste Gut, das wir haben, und Wissenschaft würde ohne diese Hilfe unbezahlbar. Es sei an eine mittlerweile rund 50 Jahre alte Maxime des großen indischen Bibliothekars und Bibliothekswissenschaftlers S.R. RANGANATHAN erinnert, die er (etwas irreführend) als ein «Gesetz der Bibliothekswissenschaft» bezeichnete: «Save the time of the reader. » Es ist aber auch für den Leser von Belletristik, für die Auswahl von Videofilmen oder Kinderbüchern nicht weniger wichtig, was man liest. So zitiert A. v. Harnack keinen geringeren als Leibniz mit den Worten «man weis, was bisweilen ein baar Bücher für Schaden gethan!'»
    Lesen hat mit Bildung zunächst nichts zu tun, es kommt darauf an, was man liest, und das wird nicht zuletzt von Katalogen beeinflusst. Wenn hier von Bibliotheken und Katalogen die Rede ist, mag der Leser und die Leserin bei Ersterem unwillkürlich an konkrete papierene Objekte denken, nämlich Bücher. Die Zahl derer hingegen, die mit «Katalog» Karteikarten verbinden, wird schon viel bescheidener ausfallen, denn wir benutzen heute selbstverständlich elektronische Datenbanken als Kataloge. Aber ebenso selbstverständlich gibt es nicht den geringsten systematischen Grund, im Folgenden digitale Bibliotheken auszuschließen. Im einfachsten Fall liegen zu den bibliographischen Informationen in einer Datenbank zugleich die zugehörigen Buchtexte vor, in welcher konkreten Form auch immer. Die Bibliothekare von heute haben es mit einer Vielzahl von Katalogen in Form von Bandkatalogen, Datenbanken, Karteien, Mikrofiches oder Multimedialen Katalogen zu tun, wobei sie immer mehr Datenbanken weltweit online erreichen. So wie wir in der Bibliotheksverwaltung (Ewert, G. und Umstätter, W. 1997) von einer Verwaltung im engeren und im erweiterten Sinne sprechen können, so müssen wir zwischen Katalogen unterscheiden, die den eigenen Besitz und solchen, die das verfügbare Wissen und die publizierte Information weiterer Einrichtungen oder sogar der ganzen Welt erschließen. Im ersten Fall sprechen wir von den Katalogen im engeren Sinne. Im zweiten Fall haben wir es einerseits mit der Zusammenführung von verschiedenen Bibliothekskatalogen zu tun, z.B. in Katalogisierungsverbünden oder sogenannten Internetportalen, und andererseits mit den meist thematisch ausgerichteten Datenbanken, die nicht selten aus den früheren Bibliographien hervorgegangen sind. Bei ihnen eine sogenannte Verlinkung mit den eigentlichen Quellen herzustellen ist oft leicht möglich. Die heutige Datenbanktechnik, die hinter modernen Katalogen steht, ergänzt stärker als je zuvor unser Gedächtnis, weil wir aus Volltext- und Multimediadatenbanken jederzeit gezielt all das abrufen können, was uns momentan nicht präsent ist. Wir können dies allerdings nur dann abrufen, wenn wir Wissen darüber besitzen, was abrufbar und wie es abrufbar ist. Zu dieser Grundlage will das vorliegende Buch beitragen. Schon die Griechen erkannten die fundamentale Bedeutung des geschriebenen Wortes als ein Langzeitgedächtnis, das unsere Erinnerung ins scheinbar Unendliche erweitert. Der Mythos von Theut beschäftigte sich mit der damit verbundenen Problematik. Aber erst die Daten- und Wissensbanken unserer Zeit schaffen die Möglichkeit, sich auch ganz gezielt zu erinnern. Sie bieten uns nicht nur die Möglichkeit bestimmte Bücher, sondern auch Aufsätze in Zeitschriften und inzwischen sogar einzelne Sätze bzw. Zitate zu finden.
    Date
    22. 1.2006 19:45:49
  17. Neubauer, W.: Von Bibliothekskatalogen zu Wissensportalen (2006) 0.01 
    0.009173402 = product of:
  0.022933504 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2008 12:40:17
    Type
    a
  18. Voss, J.: LibraryThing : Web 2.0 für Literaturfreunde und Bibliotheken (2007) 0.01 
    0.00854215 = product of:
  0.021355376 = sum of:
    0.0017027882 = weight(_text_:a in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017027882 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.03184872 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
    0.019652588 = sum of:
      0.003946911 = weight(_text_:information in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003946911 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
      0.015705677 = weight(_text_:22 in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015705677 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken Bereits früh setzte sich Tim Spalding für eine Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken ein. Zum Eintragen von neuen Büchern in LibraryThing können zahlreiche Bibliothekskataloge ausgewählt werden, die via Z39.50 eingebunden werden - seit Oktober 2006 ist auch der GBV dabei. Im April 2007 veröffentlichte Tim Spalding mit LibraryThing for Libraries ein Reihe von Webservices, die Bibliotheken in ihre OPACs einbinden können.4 Ein Webservice ist eine Funktion, die von anderen Programmen über das Web aufgerufen werden kann und Daten zurückliefert. Bereits seit Juni 2006 können über verschiedene offene LibraryThing-Webservices unter Anderem zu einer gegebenen ISBN die Sprache und eine Liste von ISBNs anderer Auflagen und Übersetzungen ermittelt werden, die zum gleichen Werk gehören (thinglSBN). Damit setzt LibraryThing praktisch einen Teil der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) um, die in bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Fachkreisen bereits seit Anfang der 1990er diskutiert werden, aber bislang nicht so Recht ihre Umsetzung in Katalogen gefunden haben. Die Information darüber, welche Bücher zum gleichen Werk gehören, wird von der LibraryThing-Community bereitgestellt; jeder Benutzer kann einzelne Ausgaben mit einem Klick zusammenführen oder wieder trennen. Vergleiche mit dem ähnlichen Dienst xISBN von OCLC zeigen, dass sich thinglSBN und xISBN gut ergänzen, allerdings bietet LibraryThing seinen Webservice im Gegensatz zu OCLC kostenlos an. Neben Empfehlungen von verwandten Büchern ist es im Rahmen von LibraryThing for Libraries auch möglich, die von den Nutzern vergebenen Tags in den eigenen Katalog einzubinden. Ein Nachteil dabei ist allerdings die bisherige Übermacht der englischen Sprache und dass nur selbständige Titel mit ISBN berücksichtigt werden. Die VZG prüft derzeit, in welcher Form LibraryThing for Libraries am besten in GBV-Bibliotheken umgesetzt werden kann. Es spricht allerdings für jede einzelne Bibliothek nichts dagegen, schon jetzt damit zu experimentieren, wie der eigene OPAC mit zusätzlichen Links und Tags von LibraryThing aussehen könnte. Darüber hinaus können sich auch Bibliotheken mit einem eigenen Zugang als Nutzer in LibraryThing beteiligen. So stellt beispielsweise die Stadtbücherei Nordenham bereits seit Ende 2005 ihre Neuzugänge im Erwachsenenbestand in einer Sammlung bei LibraryThing ein.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 10:36:23
    Type
    a
  19. Spalding, T.: Breaking into the OPAC (2009) 0.01 
    0.008234787 = product of:
  0.020586967 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
    0.011051352 = product of:
      0.022102704 = sum of:
        0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022102704 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Imprint
    Medford, N.J. : Information Today
    Type
    a
  20. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.01 
    0.008208756 = product of:
  0.02052189 = sum of:
    0.0048162127 = weight(_text_:a in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048162127 = score(doc=190,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
    0.015705677 = product of:
      0.031411353 = sum of:
        0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031411353 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 66
  • d 52
  • a 2
  • sp 2
  • f 1
  • slv 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 111
  • el 14
  • r 5
  • m 4
  • b 3
  • s 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications