Search (91 results, page 1 of 5)

0.05156097 = product of:
  0.20624387 = sum of:
    0.20624387 = weight(_text_:heading in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20624387 = score(doc=667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.5670917 = fieldWeight in 667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=667)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Forty years ago the ICCP in Paris laid the foundations of international co-operation in descriptive cataloging without explicitly speaking of authority control. Some of the factors in the evolution of authority control are the development of catalogs (from card catalog to local automation, to today's OPAC on the Web) and services provided by libraries (from individual service to local users to system networks, to the World Wide Web), as well as international agreements on cataloging (from Paris Principles to the UBC programme, to the report on Mandatory data elements for internationally shared resource authority records). This evolution progressed from the principle of uniform heading to the definition of authority entries and records, and from the responsibility of national bibliographic agencies for the form of the names of their own authors to be shared internationally to the concept of authorized equivalent heading. Some issues of the present state are the persisting differences among national rules and the aim of respecting both local culture and language and international readability.

0.05156097 = product of:
  0.20624387 = sum of:
    0.20624387 = weight(_text_:heading in 682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20624387 = score(doc=682,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.5670917 = fieldWeight in 682, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=682)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) headings is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains compatibility with LCSH--any valid Library of Congress subject heading can be converted to FAST headings.

0.042967476 = product of:
  0.1718699 = sum of:
    0.1718699 = weight(_text_:heading in 3294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1718699 = score(doc=3294,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.47257644 = fieldWeight in 3294, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3294)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

From the very beginnings of library automation, subject authority control has been considered an important bibliographic tool in the Czech National Library (CNL). Effective subject access cannot exist without standardised access points. Subject authorities are considered an indispensable reference tool in supporting the selection of subject access points and normalizing content indexing. Most importantly, they are heavily relied upon when it comes to customisation of links between bibliographic records and subject access points in order to create a user-friendly subject browsing and searching environment. Because of the fact that the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) is widely used in Czech Libraries it has become a readily available language independent subject framework which can be complemented by a more user-friendly subject heading system. In this context, the subject authority control offers a means of enhancing subject headings' access points with terminology and the semantic links available in UDC. Furthermore classification is used to enrich relationships between authority records themselves. The author will discuss in more detail the different aspects and advantages of subject authorities in which a classification and a subject heading system complement one another and the way this is implemented in the CNL.

0.04253563 = product of:
  0.17014252 = sum of:
    0.17014252 = weight(_text_:heading in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17014252 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 6607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6607)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many kinds of structure can be discerned in the headings and rules governing the Library of Congress Subject Headings. By addressing these structures at different levels, librarians can develop different approaches to the machine-assisted validation of subject headings, from the checking of individual words to the validation of complex forms of heading/subdivision compatibility. Using computer programs to assist with maintenance of subject headings is becoming increasingly necessary as technical services librarians strive to create consistent and useful patterns of subject collocation in library catalogs

0.04253563 = product of:
  0.17014252 = sum of:
    0.17014252 = weight(_text_:heading in 679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17014252 = score(doc=679,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 679, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=679)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This presentation attempts to fit the subject contribution mechanism used in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging's SACO Program into the context of subject gateways. The discussion points to several subject gateways and concludes that there is no similarity between the two. Subject gateways are a mechanism for facilitating searching, while the SACO Program is a cooperative venture that provides a "gateway" for the development of LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Heading list) into an international authority file for subject headings.

0.04253563 = product of:
  0.17014252 = sum of:
    0.17014252 = weight(_text_:heading in 680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17014252 = score(doc=680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=680)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Shared authority files and cooperation in the development of national lists, both author and subject, have enabled libraries to share resources and improve access to their collections. As we move from national resource sharing to a more international approach, we face problems accessing catalogues in other languages. By creating links between existing subject heading languages (initially in French, German, and English), MACS (Multilingual Access to Subjects) allows users to carry out searches in major national library collections in Europe using subject headings in their own languages. An operational service will be available in 2004.

0.04253563 = product of:
  0.17014252 = sum of:
    0.17014252 = weight(_text_:heading in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17014252 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Normalization rules are essential for interoperability between bibliographic systems. In the process of working with Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) authority files to match records with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and developing the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject heading schema, the authors found inconsistencies in independently created NACO normalization implementations. Investigating these, the authors found ambiguities in the NACO standard that need resolution, and came to conclusions on how the procedure could be simplified with little impact on matching headings. To encourage others to test their software for compliance with the current rules, the authors have established a Web site that has test files and interactive services showing their current implementation.

0.04253563 = product of:
  0.17014252 = sum of:
    0.17014252 = weight(_text_:heading in 451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17014252 = score(doc=451,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 451, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=451)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority control is discussed from two viewpoints: The need for bibliographic records relating to a name to be brought together under one form of the name; and the need for cross references to direct a user to a heading from variant forms of the name. Data from two research projects that support the need for choosing one form of name are summarized. The author's study of user requests that resulted in no "hits" in an online catalog is described. Data are given to show that for only 6.4% of these requests would our current methods of cross referencing in authority records have been helpful, and that two system programs would have given much greater assistance.

0.030382592 = product of:
  0.12153037 = sum of:
    0.12153037 = weight(_text_:heading in 6922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12153037 = score(doc=6922,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 6922, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6922)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority control of Spanish-language subject headings is described, with a special focus on Mexico. Efforts currently underway in Colombia, Chile, Spain and Mexico, although they share the same language, are somewhat lacking in standardization and cooperation among countries. In the absence of a national authority for bibliographic control in Mexico, a group of university libraries has initiated a cooperative project to build in the near future a national file of Spanish subject headings for the Social Sciences. The project, based upon the experience and rich collections of El Colegio de Mexico, has attracted support from the U.S. Library of Congress and is being partially financed by the U.S.-Mexican Fund for Culture (sponsored by the Rockefeller and Bancomer Foundations). The paper mentions some of the difficulties found in translating LCSH, which is the main resource for the project. These difficulties can include semantics, syndetic structure, or pragmatic problems; most have been solved by supplementing the LCSH with Spanish-language subject heading lists or thesauri

0.030382592 = product of:
  0.12153037 = sum of:
    0.12153037 = weight(_text_:heading in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12153037 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, 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.

0.030382592 = product of:
  0.12153037 = sum of:
    0.12153037 = weight(_text_:heading in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12153037 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper introduces TinREAD (The Information Navigator for Readers), an integrated library system produced by IME Romania. The main feature of interest is the way TinREAD can handle a classification-based thesaurus in which verbal index terms are mapped to classification notations. It supports subject authority control interlinking the authority files (subject headings and UDC system). Authority files are used for indexing consistency. Although it is said that intellectual indexing is, unlike automated indexing, both subjective and inconsistent, TinREAD is using intellectual indexing as input (the UDC notations assigned to documents) for the automated indexing resulting from the implementation of a thesaurus structure based on UDC. Each UDC notation is represented by a UNIMARC subject heading record as authority data. One classification notation can be used to search simultaneously into more than one corresponding thesaurus. This way natural language terms are used in indexing and, at the same time, the link with the corresponding classification notation is kept. Additionally, the system can also manage multilingual data for the authority files. This, together with other characteristics of TinREAD are largely discussed and illustrated in the paper. Problems encountered and possible solutions to tackle them are shown.

0.021267815 = product of:
  0.08507126 = sum of:
    0.08507126 = weight(_text_:heading in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08507126 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36368698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.2339134 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Work on a prototype of the new Soggettario (the main Italian subject heading list) has begun in October 2004 at the Central National Library of Florence (BNCF). BNCF is involving in the renewal of the most used subject indexing tool of Italian libraries. The project had already produced a Feasibility Study, representing a reference for the works which have started recently. An Italian abstract of the Feasibility Study, and more documentation, can be found in the BCNF website at the Web address <http://www bncf.firenze.sbn.it/progetti/>. Together with the project team and the BNCF staff, some young external consultants are working, who are focusing on the terminological component of the system, namely the prototype of the Thesaurus. At the same time, documents are produced which define procedures, establish criteria, and give guidelines. The list of items by which the prototype started consists of: - the terms included in the updates provided by the Italian National Bibliography (BNI) during the period 1986-1998 (already published in the form of lists); - the items introduced from 1999 to 2005 - other items introduced in the past years but never recorded; - some terms from the Soggettario (1956) or from BNI updates (1956-19S5), being especially outdated and needing revision. In building the semantic networks and the hierarchies, and in making the terminological control, of course, more terms have to be included, which come from the Soggettario, the BNI and other authoritative sources both catalographic (various indexing tools) and lexicographic (general and special directories). DDC numbers are also related to the terms in the Thesaurus. The prototype, to be completed in April 2006, will include a sample of terms for each disciplinary area. About 5000 terms will have a complete structure, but 6000 more will be included in the Thesaurus in order to fill the semantic networks, and marked with a different working status. For the prototype the AgroVoc software is used, which has been provided by FAO and adapted by the BNCF computing staff in order to match the specific requirements of the project. Thanks to the potential of this software, we intend to test in future on the multilingual side of terminology. Such work is likely to begin by testing links to the corresponding forms used by the Library of Congress. We are currently beginning to focus on this, and we wish that external parties be involved which are concerned with multilingual terminology in more or less specialistic contexts. We will follow the road of conventions with Italian universities, which could cooperate to this development through their students and graded students. We are also looking at the developments in the work of the British BSI working group on standards for thesauri convened by Stella Dextre Clarke.

0.01697916 = product of:
  0.06791664 = sum of:
    0.06791664 = weight(_text_:und in 1754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06791664 = score(doc=1754,freq=54.0), product of:
        0.13334832 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.5093176 = fieldWeight in 1754, product of:
          7.3484693 = tf(freq=54.0), with freq of:
            54.0 = termFreq=54.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1754)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der 70. Band der BIPRA-Reihe beschäftigt sich mit der Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung im Kontext etablierter Verfahren und technologischer Innovationen. Treffen heterogene Erzeugnisse unterschiedlicher Methoden und Systeme aufeinander, müssen minimale Anforderungen an die Qualität der Inhaltserschließung festgelegt werden. Die Qualitätsfrage wird zurzeit in verschiedenen Zusammenhängen intensiv diskutiert und im vorliegenden Band aufgegriffen. In diesem Themenfeld aktive Autor:innen beschreiben aus ihrem jeweiligen Blickwinkel unterschiedliche Aspekte zu Metadaten, Normdaten, Formaten, Erschließungsverfahren und Erschließungspolitik. Der Band versteht sich als Handreichung und Anregung für die Diskussion um die Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung.

Content

Inhalt: Editorial - Michael Franke-Maier, Anna Kasprzik, Andreas Ledl und Hans Schürmann Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung - Ein Überblick aus 50 Jahren (1970-2020) - Andreas Ledl Fit for Purpose - Standardisierung von inhaltserschließenden Informationen durch Richtlinien für Metadaten - Joachim Laczny Neue Wege und Qualitäten - Die Inhaltserschließungspolitik der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek - Ulrike Junger und Frank Scholze Wissensbasen für die automatische Erschließung und ihre Qualität am Beispiel von Wikidata - Lydia Pintscher, Peter Bourgonje, Julián Moreno Schneider, Malte Ostendorff und Georg Rehm Qualitätssicherung in der GND - Esther Scheven Qualitätskriterien und Qualitätssicherung in der inhaltlichen Erschließung - Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) Coli-conc - Eine Infrastruktur zur Nutzung und Erstellung von Konkordanzen - Uma Balakrishnan, Stefan Peters und Jakob Voß Methoden und Metriken zur Messung von OCR-Qualität für die Kuratierung von Daten und Metadaten - Clemens Neudecker, Karolina Zaczynska, Konstantin Baierer, Georg Rehm, Mike Gerber und Julián Moreno Schneider Datenqualität als Grundlage qualitativer Inhaltserschließung - Jakob Voß Bemerkungen zu der Qualitätsbewertung von MARC-21-Datensätzen - Rudolf Ungváry und Péter Király Named Entity Linking mit Wikidata und GND - Das Potenzial handkuratierter und strukturierter Datenquellen für die semantische Anreicherung von Volltexten - Sina Menzel, Hannes Schnaitter, Josefine Zinck, Vivien Petras, Clemens Neudecker, Kai Labusch, Elena Leitner und Georg Rehm Ein Protokoll für den Datenabgleich im Web am Beispiel von OpenRefine und der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) - Fabian Steeg und Adrian Pohl Verbale Erschließung in Katalogen und Discovery-Systemen - Überlegungen zur Qualität - Heidrun Wiesenmüller Inhaltserschließung für Discovery-Systeme gestalten - Jan Frederik Maas Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext des Information Retrievals - Christian Wartena und Koraljka Golub Die Qualität der Fremddatenanreicherung FRED - Cyrus Beck Quantität als Qualität - Was die Verbünde zur Verbesserung der Inhaltserschließung beitragen können - Rita Albrecht, Barbara Block, Mathias Kratzer und Peter Thiessen Hybride Künstliche Intelligenz in der automatisierten Inhaltserschließung - Harald Sack

Footnote

Vgl.: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110691597/html. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110691597. Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 73(2022) H.2-3, S.131-132 (B. Lorenz u. V. Steyer). Weitere Rezension in: o-bib 9(20229 Nr.3. (Martin Völkl) [https://www.o-bib.de/bib/article/view/5843/8714].

Series

Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis; 70

0.016338205 = product of:
  0.06535282 = sum of:
    0.06535282 = weight(_text_:und in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06535282 = score(doc=5186,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13334832 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.4900911 = fieldWeight in 5186, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5186)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.016338205 = product of:
  0.06535282 = sum of:
    0.06535282 = weight(_text_:und in 3394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06535282 = score(doc=3394,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13334832 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.4900911 = fieldWeight in 3394, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3394)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: Normdateien in Theorie und Praxis - Übersicht: Normdateien in Deutschland - Exkurs: Normdateien im Ausland - Normdateien im Bibliotheksverbund Niedersachsen / Sachsen-Anhalt / Thüringen - Zusammenfassung und Ausblick. Hausarbeit zur Prüfung für den höheren Bibliotheksdienst

Imprint

Köln : FH, Fb Bibliotheks- und Informationswesen

0.016338205 = product of:
  0.06535282 = sum of:
    0.06535282 = weight(_text_:und in 4666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06535282 = score(doc=4666,freq=50.0), product of:
        0.13334832 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.4900911 = fieldWeight in 4666, product of:
          7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
            50.0 = termFreq=50.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4666)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Für die Schlagwortkatalogisierungsregeln ist im Bereich der Ansetzung von Personennamen, Körperschaftsnamen und Titeln, in denen sie sich mit den Formalkatalogisierungsregeln überlappen, eine Konformität mit diesen aus verschiedenen Gründen sehr wünschenswert, wenn nicht geboten."' Diese These von Peter Baader, seinerzeit Leiter der Abteilung Alphabetische Katalogisierung der Deutschen Bibliothek, stammt aus der Zeit vor dem Erscheinen der ersten Auflage (1986) der RSWK und ist heute immer noch genauso aktuell wie im Jahre 1983. Baader warnte vor einer "Zersplitterung" der jeweiligen Regelungen, konnte diese jedoch nicht verhindern, da die RSWK sich letztlich auf etablierte deutsche Schlagwortregelwerke und die Ergebnisse von Abstimmungen durch deutsche Bibliotheksverbünde und Einzelbibliotheken beriefen. Dies geschah nicht zuletzt, um die Akzeptanz der RSWK als neues Einheitsregelwerk zu erhöhen. Zwanzig Jahre später diskutiert die deutschsprachige bibliothekarische Fachwelt endlich ergebnisorientiert über die Angleichung von RAK und RSWK, jetzt allerdings unter Anpassung der RAK an Struktur und Inhalte der Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) bzw. ihres Nachfolgers. Die folgende Darstellung unternimmt den Versuch, auf der Grundlage dieser Prämisse das Modell eines für die Formal- und Inhaltserschließung gemeinsamen deutschen Regelwerks zu skizzieren und die noch bestehenden Unterschiede zu dokumentieren. Zum besseren Verständnis des doch so langwierigen Annäherungsprozesses soll zunächst die bisherige Entwicklung betrachtet werden. Eckpunkte der Vorgeschichte - Die DBI-Kommission für Erschließung und Katalogmanagement (KEK) beschließt 1991 in ihrem Arbeitsprogramm den Abgleich beider Regelwerke und erklärt 1992 ihre Absicht, die Ansetzungen der Personennamen in RAK und RSWK zu harmonisieren. - Die Expertengruppe Online-Kataloge empfiehlt 1994 einheitliche Ansetzungsformen in RAK und RSWK für Personen- bzw. Körperschaftsnamen sowie eine umfassende Bestimmung von Einheitssachtiteln. - Die Expertengruppen RAK und RSWK beschließen 1996, dass bei der Ansetzung von Personen- und Körperschaftsnamen substanzielle Abweichungen zwischen den beiden Regelwerken vorläufig erhalten bleiben und stattdessen unterschiedliche Ansetzungsformen miteinander verknüpft werden sollen. Kurz nach dem Beginn der Diskussion über einen möglichen Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC 21, AACR2) fasst der Standardisierungsausschuss im Juni 2002 den Beschluss zur Angleichung von RAK und RSWK. Ausgangspunkt sollen die Ansetzungsformen von Personen und Körperschaften sein. Im Dezember 2002 wird von einem RAK-RSWK-Expertentreffen vorgeschlagen, bei Regeländerungen die AACR2 zu berücksichtigen, ein gemeinsames Datenformat für PND, GKD und SWD zu entwickeln, den Änderungsaufwand in den Normdateien abzuschätzen und einen Zeitplan für ein gestuftes Vorgehen bei den Regeländerungen zu entwickeln. Im Mai 2004 beschließen die Expertengruppen Formalerschließung, PND und RSWK/SWD bei getrennten und überwiegend unterschiedlichen Regelwerkstexten einheitliche Ansetzungsformen in RAK und RSWK für Personennamen. Der Standardisierungsausschuss erklärt seine Absicht, einen für Formal- und Inhaltserschließung gemeinsamen Regelwerkstext zu veröffentlichen. Im Januar 2005 wird von Vertretern der Expertengruppen ein von der Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung vorgelegtes Arbeitspaket "Gemeinsame Ansetzungsregeln für Körperschaften" (GKR) beschlossen. Im März 2005 legt die Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung ein Konzept zur Entwicklung eines gemeinsamen Normdatenformats vor.

0.01625631 = product of:
  0.06502524 = sum of:
    0.06502524 = weight(_text_:und in 5183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06502524 = score(doc=5183,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.13334832 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.48763448 = fieldWeight in 5183, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5183)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die kooperative Führung der Schlagwortnormdatei und die Gewährleistung der Qualität der in ihr enthaltenen Daten sind mit einem enormen Aufwand verbunden, der durch den Einsatz der EDV und geeignete Organisationsstrukturen nur geringfügig reduziert werden kann. Die Erstellung der SWD-Normdatensätze bleibt aufgrund der Vielzahl der den Ansetzungsformen beizufügenden Zusatzinformationen wie Codes, Notationen und Relationen relativ zeitintensiv. Diese lassen jedoch auch die SWD besonders wertvoll für die Recherche werden, da sie die Wiederauffindbarkeit der Daten unterstützen. Während die Schlagwortsuche in deutschen OPACs weit verbreitet ist, haben Codes, Notationen und Relationen bisher nur geringfügig Eingang in den OPAC gefunden. Bei einer Untersuchung von 111 Online-Katalogen wurde festgestellt, dass kein einziger OPAC all die Möglichkeiten nutzt, die mit der SWD gegeben sind. Am meisten werden noch Synonyme und - in geringerem Maße - hierarchische und assoziative Relationen zur Verbesserung des Recalls und zur Benutzerführung eingesetzt. Codes und Notationen finden nur vereinzelt Anwendung.

Series

Kölner Arbeitspapiere zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft; Bd.49

0.01625631 = product of:
  0.06502524 = sum of:
    0.06502524 = weight(_text_:und in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06502524 = score(doc=3222,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.13334832 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.48763448 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die kooperative Führung der Schlagwortnormdatei und die Gewährleistung der Qualität der in ihr enthaltenen Daten sind mit einem enormen Aufwand verbunden, der durch den Einsatz der EDV und geeignete Organisationsstrukturen nur geringfügig reduziert werden kann. Die Erstellung der SWD-Normdatensätze bleibt aufgrund der Vielzahl der den Ansetzungsformen beizufügenden Zusatzinformationen wie Codes, Notationen und Relationen relativ zeitintensiv. Diese lassen jedoch auch die SWD besonders wertvoll für die Recherche werden, da sie die Wiederauffindbarkeit der Daten unterstützen. Während die Schlagwortsuche in deutschen OPACs weit verbreitet ist, haben Codes, Notationen und Relationen bisher nur geringfügig Eingang in den OPAC gefunden. Bei einer Untersuchung von 111 Online-Katalogen wurde festgestellt, dass kein einziger OPAC all die Möglichkeiten nutzt, die mit der SWD gegeben sind. Am meisten werden noch Synonyme und - in geringerem Maße - hierarchische und assoziative Relationen zur Verbesserung des Recalls und zur Benutzerführung eingesetzt. Codes und Notationen finden nur vereinzelt Anwendung.

Footnote

Master's thesis Zusatzstudiengang Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

0.016173998 = product of:
  0.06469599 = sum of:
    0.06469599 = weight(_text_:und in 6817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06469599 = score(doc=6817,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13334832 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.48516542 = fieldWeight in 6817, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6817)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.016173998 = product of:
  0.06469599 = sum of:
    0.06469599 = weight(_text_:und in 6819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06469599 = score(doc=6819,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13334832 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.060123704 = queryNorm
        0.48516542 = fieldWeight in 6819, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6819)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)