Search (440 results, page 4 of 22)

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since it is obviously impossible to "hold" live performances in library collections (in contrast to recorded performances and motion pictures), such creations are barely accounted for in library catalogues and cataloging prescriptions, even as a topic in subject headings. The way AACR and the Anglo-American cataloging tradition deals with performing arts is discussed at length. Conversely, specialized institutions have developed their own rules for the description of live performances: the Dance Heritage Coalition (New York) creates authority records for choreographic works, and the Département des Arts du Spectacle at Bibliothèque nationale de France creates bibliographic records for theatrical, operatic, and choreographic performances. As a conclusion, a tentative modeling of performing arts as bibliographic entities, strictly based on FRBR, is proposed.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliographic records are retrieved through the use of access points, headings for persons and corporate bodes who are responsible for the creation of the work(s) represented by the bibliographic record, or who have another relationship with the work(s). Part II of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. 2d ed. (AACR2) gives instructions for determining which access points should be assigned to a given bibliographic record and the form that those access points should have. This article covers the basic rules in AACR2 that are needed for determining which access points to assign to an archival or manuscript work (whether a collection or an individual item) and for determining the form of access points for personal names, geographic names, and corporate body names.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Texas A & M University Modern Languages Department has been expanding its curriculum to include courses in Chinese. To support this curriculum, the Evans Library has recently acquired titles in Chinese. The Original Cataloging Department did not have the language expertise necessary to catalog these books in a timely manner. This project examined the feasibility of hiring student assistants with language expertise to assist the original catalogers. A graduate student, fluent in Chinese, was hired to transliterate the title page and verso, and provide descriptive information for fifty-five Chinese books. The student was also asked to provide a brief translation to assist in establishing LC Subject Headings and LC Classification numbers. Items for which copy was found on OCLC acted as a control for the accuracy of transliteration. Original catalogers then prepared the bibliographic records for the remaining titles. Utilizing the student's language expertise resulted in the processing of materials in a timely manner benefiting the university community.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Before the implementation of NOTIS in January of 1988, all authority work at the Evans Library was recorded in an authority card file. Planning began early for the creation of an automated authority section. This section included a cataloger, staff from copy cataloging, and the now obsolete Card Catalog Maintenance Section. This diverse group presented a challenge because of their varying degrees of expertise. Areas of training that needed to be addressed included use of the OCLC and NOTIS systems and basic cataloging rules, especially as they apply to establishing names, subject headings, and series. Issues addressed included: staffing, equipment, materials, training, and procedures and policy decisions. The Library contracted with Blackwell, North America to convert the authority card file to machine readable form, giving the authority section its starting point. The section began training in March 1989 and became functional in July of that year. Even though the section continues to evolve, the original goals were met in the creation of a cohesive group with the basic knowledge and skills needed to transfer authority control from a manual to an automated environment.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper analyses the presuppositions, goals, and implementations of policies for rapid cataloging in three large academic libraries in the United States. In the first model, The University of Chicago's W-Collection, there was no attempt to catalog materials; the order record alone is used and the items are shelved in a publicly accessible area by accession number. The second model, Princeton's ATA Procedure, made cataloging the initial activity upon receipt, the purpose of which was "to give the future librarians enough information to know if the item is already in the collection or not" and also to serve (with subject headings and classification) the library's users. Finally, Cornell's COR Procedure in which all information in the records is assumed to be temporary and therefore unimportant; the necessary information is expected to be acquired later from commercial sources.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 1785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=1785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 1785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1785)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the light of a proposal for names of families to be treated as a separate form of name heading in the forthcoming Resource Description and Access, this article examines the treatment of families in the Anglo-American descriptive cataloging tradition and the extent to which names of families have been assigned as non-subject access points. It contrasts manuscript catalogers' practice of assigning family name headings with the general binary division of personal and corporate names, and discusses how an expansion of the library definition of authorship, so as to accommodate the archival concept of provenance, may more readily allow for familial and other non-corporate group authors. It concludes by suggesting that a corporate and non-corporate group categorisation may be unnecessary, and that instead the corporate body class should be revised, so as to encompass all groups of persons.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Resource description and discovery have been facilitated generally in two approaches, namely bibliographic control and metadata, which now may converge in response to current issues and challenges of providing subject access. Four categories of major issues and challenges in the provision of subject access to digital and non-digital resources are: 1) the advancement of new knowledge; 2) the fall of controlled vocabulary and the rise of natural language; 3) digitizing and networking the traditional catalogue systems; and 4) electronic publishing and the Internet. The creation of new knowledge and the debate about the use of natural language and controlled vocabulary as subject headings becomes even more intense in the digital and online environment. The third and fourth categories are conceived after the emergence of networked environments and the rapid expansion of electronic resources. Recognizing the convergence of metadata schemas and bibliographic control calls for adapting to the new environment by developing tools that exploit the strengths of both.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=733,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 733, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=733)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This entry covers both the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules of 1967 and the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition of 1978 and later. These were the most important advances in English-language codes for descriptive cataloging during the twentieth century. The 1967 code, produced in different American and British editions, included rules for choice and form of headings as well as rules for description, the former being based on the outcomes of the Paris Conference on Cataloguing Principles of 1961. The advent of International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) brought changes to the rules for description, and these were incorporated in the 1978 code, which for the first time instituted a formal separation between description and access points. Significant features of both editions are described.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 3603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=3603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3603)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This comprehensive annotated webliography describes online cataloging resources that are free to use, currently updated, and of high quality. The major aim of this webliography is to provide assistance for catalogers who are new to the profession, unfamiliar with cataloging specific formats, or unable to access costly print and subscription resources. The annotated resources include general websites and webpages, databases, workshop presentations, streaming media, and local documentation. The scope of the webliography is limited to resources reflecting traditional cataloging practices using the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, RDA: Resource Description and Access, and MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC) standards. Non-MARC metadata schemas like Dublin Core are not covered. Most components of cataloging are represented in this webliography, such as authority control, classification, subject headings, and genre terms. Guidance also is provided for cataloging miscellaneous formats including sound and videorecordings, streaming media, e-books, video games, graphic novels, kits, rare materials, maps, serials, realia, government documents, and music.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.021956919 = product of:
  0.087827675 = sum of:
    0.087827675 = weight(_text_:und in 6246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.087827675 = score(doc=6246,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.5942039 = fieldWeight in 6246, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6246)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Vorstellung eines Erfassungsschemas zur formalen und inhaltlichen Erschließung von Leichenpredigten am Beispiel der Leichenpredigtensammlung der Magdeburger Universitätsbibliothek.

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 3(1979) H.2, S.112-121

0.02173171 = product of:
  0.08692684 = sum of:
    0.08692684 = weight(_text_:und in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08692684 = score(doc=6903,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.58810925 = fieldWeight in 6903, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6903)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Altes Buch und Neue Medien: Vorträge und Kommissionssitzungen. Der österreichische Bibliothekartag 1992, Eisenstadt, 29.9.-3.10.1992. Hrsg.: Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare

0.02173171 = product of:
  0.08692684 = sum of:
    0.08692684 = weight(_text_:und in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08692684 = score(doc=2651,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.58810925 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der neue Erschliessungsstandard RDA beschäftigt aktuell unzählige Arbeitsgruppen und Einzelpersonen aus verschiedenen Ländern. Dabei geht es vor allem um die Anpassung einzelner Regeln und Konzepte an lokale Gegebenheiten und spezifische Medientypen. Das erklärte Ziel, den Standard auch für nicht-bibliothekarische Communities attraktiv zu machen, stand jedoch bislang im Hintergrund. Es ist unklar, ob und wie sich RDA beispielsweise in Archiven und Sondersammlungen anwenden lässt. Diese Bachelorarbeit widmet sich dieser Unsicherheit und untersucht die Möglichkeiten der Katalogisierung von ausgewählten archivalischen Ressourcen. Mittels einer Literaturanalyse werden die von Nutzern und Erschliessenden als essenziell erachteten Merkmale von Briefen und Fotografien erhoben und auf die Beschreibungsmöglichkeiten mit RDA hin untersucht. Dabei zeigt sich, dass der Standard grundsätzlich aufgeschlossen gegenüber archivalischen und historischen Ressourcen ist und sich lediglich vereinzelte Anpassungen von Begriffslisten und An- wendungsregeln empfehlen. Entscheidende Fragestellungen, wie die Abbildung von Kontextualität und Hierarchien, müssen jedoch noch geklärt werden, um die Attraktivität des Standards für nicht-bibliothekarische Communities weiter zu verbessern.

Imprint

Chur : Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=2093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 2093, 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=2093)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a comparative analysis of choice and form of main entry in the monograph cataloguing of the LoC and that of the British Library and the national libraries of Canada and Australia in 1982 and 1989, to examine the level and kind of consistency achieved in Anglo-American descriptive cataloguing. The overall aim of the project was to investigate the achievement of UBC and the implicit idea that bibliographic records created by the national bibliographic agency (NBA) of one country should be acceptable, without modification, to the NBAs of other countries. Part 2 provides an analysis of patternsaffecting the form of main entry headings (personal and corporate names), choice and form of uniform titles and titles proper, and miscellaneous descriptive cataloguing elements. These steps are intended to lead to a common MARC format, a common file of authority records, and, ultimately, a common file of bibliographic records for the cataloguing agencies of the major English speaking countries. concludes that Barbara Tillett's vision of 1 seamless bibliographic system, either real or virtual, looks realizable over a 5 to 10 year horizon

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 631, 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=631)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 652, 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=652)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=278,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 278, 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=278)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In January 1999, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging approved the core bibliographic standard for rare books, called the DCRB Core standard. Like the other core standards, the DCRB Core provides the framework within which catalogers can create bibliographic records that are less than full, but are as reliable as full-level records in description and authorized headings. In the three years since its approval, there is little evidence that the standard has been widely used. This study reports the results of a survey sent to forty-three participants who indicated in a preliminary query that they do use the DCRB Core or that they have made the decision not to use it. In the thirty-seven surveys that were returned, only about 16% of the respondents said they have used the standard to create bibliographic records for their rare books. The libraries that do not use the core standard find it inferior or lacking in a number of ways. Several of those libraries, however, are planning to use the standard in the future or are seriously planning to investigate using it. Such intent may indicate that the time is approaching when more libraries will find reasons to implement the standard. One impetus may come from the findings of a recent survey of the special collections departments of member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries that emphasize the size of the backlogs in those departments. If faster accessibility to specific portions of the backlogs would benefit users more than having fulllevel cataloging, application of the DCRB Core standard could facilitate reducing those backlogs.

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 316, 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=316)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

International efforts to provide authority control include the work of IFLA, the AUTHOR Project funded by the European Commission, and related work conducted under the auspices of the ICA/CDS. IFLA developed the guidelines Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, documented the formulation of names along the lines of national origin in its publication Names of Persons, and published Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. Attention has shifted from a single authority record for each entity that would be shared internationally through the exchange of records to linking parallel authority records for the same entity. The access control of the future will account for difference in cataloging rules, transliteration standards, and cultural differences within the same language as well as for the need for different languages and scripts and will enable users to display the script and form of a heading that they expect. Project AUTHOR is a shared set of resource national authority files that used selections from the authority files of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. The prototype tested an adaptation of Z39.50 server software for authority records and displays for user interface. An international standard for authority control records has been developed for corporate bodies, persons, and families. Through joint meetings efforts have been synchronized to develop authority control at the international level.

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 3379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=3379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 3379, 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=3379)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This invaluable cataloging resource gives pre-service and practicing school library media specialists the tools they need to be intelligent consumers of commercial cataloging and competent organizers of new materials in their collections. The second edition contains expanded information on Library of Congress Subject Headings and electronic cataloging and cataloging systems, as well as Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC). Whether you're a practicing cataloger looking for a short text to update you on the application of RDA to cataloging records or a school librarian who needs a quick resource to answer cataloging questions, this guide is for you. - Thoroughly updates a best-selling, essential guide to cataloging - Addresses the new standards specifically as they apply to school libraries - Helps school librarians understand and implement the new cataloging standards in their collections - Distills the latest information and presents it in a format that is clear and accessible - Fills the need for up-to-the-minute cataloging guidance for the busy librarian who wants information in a hurry