Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03753558 = product of:
  0.15014233 = sum of:
    0.15014233 = weight(_text_:headings in 3553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15014233 = score(doc=3553,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.46429324 = fieldWeight in 3553, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3553)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Canada has a long history of adapting United States subject access tools, including the Library of Congress Classification (LCC), Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the Dewey Decimal Classification, and the Sears List of Subject Headings, to meet the specific needs of Canadians. This paper addresses the extensions to these American tools for English-speaking Canadians. While the United States and Canada have many similarities, differences exist that require changing terminology and providing greater depth and precision in subject headings and classification for specifically Canadian topics. The major effort has been for Library and Archives Canada (LAC) systematically to provide extensions for LCC and LCSH for use within its cataloging records. This paper examines the history and philosophy of these Canadian efforts to provide enhanced subject access. Paradoxically, French-speaking Canadians may have found it easier to start from scratch with the Repertoire de vedettes-matiere because of the difficult decisions for English-language tools on how much change to implement in an environment where most Canadian libraries use the American subject access tools. Canadian studies scholars around the world can use Canadian records, especially those maintained by LAC, to obtain superior subject access for Canadian topics even if they obtain the documents from other sources.

0.03677721 = product of:
  0.14710884 = sum of:
    0.14710884 = weight(_text_:headings in 1732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14710884 = score(doc=1732,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1732, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1732)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since many nations rely upon subject headings and classification numbers from cataloguing agencies in developed countries, changes requiring computers would hinder subject access in Thrid World areas which lack high technology. New computer-supported systems such as PRECIS will probably take hold only in languages and countries where a subject analysis system does not already exist. For the traditional card catalogue-based subject access system, computer support may lead to more frequent changes in headings, less pre-coordinated structure, and the assignement of more terms per document. Third world countires may have difficulty in adapting to the developments. Classification, especially since it more easily crosses linguistc boundaries, may become to a greater degree the preferred means of subject access in Third World nations. During the transition, IFLA can serve as a forum for developing nations to make their needs known to the providers of bibliographic data

0.03677721 = product of:
  0.14710884 = sum of:
    0.14710884 = weight(_text_:headings in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14710884 = score(doc=5599,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Library of Congress subject heading policy has been frequently criticized for using obsolete and biased terminology, for not providing subject analysis in depth, and for being overly research library oriented. While both PRECIS and the Subject Analysis Project offer possible solutions, fiscal considerations make their adoptions unlikely. By using existing computer technology, individual libraries could improve subject access by improved subject searching capabilities and by implementations of subject authority files which could tailor LC subject headings to the individual libraries' needs and provide an individualized cross-reference structure. For its part, the Library of Congress should provide an uptatable machine readable file of its complete cross-reference structure. This file should contain all references used in the Library of Congress Public Catalog since much of LC's subject heading practice is based upon its cross-reference structure. With such improvements, LC subject headings could provide much better subject access at an acceptable cost

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 2524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=2524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 2524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2524)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

United States libraries use classification to provide subject browsing in open stacks. The DDC used by 85% of American libraries, is a theoretical, universal attempt to organize all knowledge. The LCC lacks intellectual consistency since it was based upon library warrant to organize materials in one collection. Many academic libraries use LCC because the Library of Congress' shared bibliographic records with the LCC call numbers reflect the collecting interests of academic libraries. LCC is more hospitable to change than DDC whoese phoenix schedules have encountered resistance throughout the world. Classification currently receives less attention than subject headings since United States librarians place great hope in the computer to resolve subject heading problems while remaining conservative about classification

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 1946, the Université Laval in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, started using Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in French by creating an authority list, Répertoire de Vedettes-matière (RVM), whose first published edition appeared in 1962. In the 1970s, the most important libraries in Canada with an interest in French-language cataloging - the Université de Montréal, the Bibliothèque Nationale du Canada, and the Bibliothèque Nationale du Quebec - forged partnerships with the Université Laval to support RVM. In 1974, the Bibliothèque Publique d'Information, Centre Pompidou, Paris, France became the first library in Europe to adopt RVM. During the 1980s, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF) created an authority list, RAMEAU, based upon RVM, which is used by numerous French libraries of all types. The major libraries in Luxembourg adopted RVM in 1985. Individual libraries in Belgium also use RVM, often in combination with LCSH. The spread of RVM in the francophone world reflects the increasing importance of the pragmatic North American tradition of shared cataloging and library cooperation. RVM and its European versions are based upon literary warrant and make changes to LCSH to reflect the specific cultural and linguistic meeds of their user communities. While the users of RVM seek to harmonize the various versions, differences in terminology and probably syntax are inevitable.

0.020488854 = product of:
  0.08195542 = sum of:
    0.08195542 = weight(_text_:und in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08195542 = score(doc=928,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.5544748 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)