Search (5042 results, page 1 of 253)

0.16908821 = product of:
  0.33817643 = sum of:
    0.21078834 = weight(_text_:joint in 2903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21078834 = score(doc=2903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.48274595 = fieldWeight in 2903, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2903)
    0.12738809 = weight(_text_:headings in 2903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12738809 = score(doc=2903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 2903, 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=2903)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In the ten years since the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, long-standing debates have continued as to whether or not to have a "main entry", and whether or not to exercise the rule of three to limit the number of headings or access points in certain cases. Recent proposals from the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA have recommended a change in "main entry" terminology to "primary access point," and the elimination of the rule of three. This paper explores how and why these shifts have occurred.

0.16908821 = product of:
  0.33817643 = sum of:
    0.21078834 = weight(_text_:joint in 3285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21078834 = score(doc=3285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.48274595 = fieldWeight in 3285, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3285)
    0.12738809 = weight(_text_:headings in 3285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12738809 = score(doc=3285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 3285, 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=3285)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, to be known as Resource Description and Access (RDA), has indicated that the replacement for the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) will allow the use of family names as authors and will provide rules for their formation. This paper discusses what a family name describes; examines how information seekers look for family names and what they expect to find; describes the ways in which family names have been established in Anglo-American cataloging and archival traditions; asks how adequately the headings established under these rules help users seek such information; and suggests how revised cataloging rules might better enable users to identify resources that meet their needs.

0.16474459 = product of:
  0.32948917 = sum of:
    0.31618252 = weight(_text_:joint in 1644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31618252 = score(doc=1644,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.72411895 = fieldWeight in 1644, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1644)
    0.013306658 = weight(_text_:und in 1644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013306658 = score(doc=1644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.085765935 = fieldWeight in 1644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1644)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

""A thesaurus is a terminological control device used in translating from the natural language of documents, indexers or users into a more constrained `system language' (document language, information language)". It is also "a controlled and dynamic vocabulary of semantically and generically related terms which covers a specific domain of knowledge". The Joint INIS/EDTE Thesaurus fits this definition adopted by UNESCO.' The domain of knowledge covered by the Joint INIS/ETDE Thesaurus includes physics (in particular, plasma physics, atomic and molecular physics, and especially nuclear and high-energy physics), chemistry, materials science, earth sciences, radiation biology, radioisotope effects and kinetics, applied life sciences, radiology and nuclear medicine, isotope and radiation source technology, radiation protection, radiation applications, engineering, instrumentation, fossil fuels, synthetic fuels, renewable energy sources, advanced energy systems, fission and fusion reactor technology, safeguards and inspection, waste management, environmental aspects of the production and consumption of energy from nuclear and non-nuclear sources, energy efficiency and energy conservation, economics and sociology of energy production and use, energy policy, and nuclear law. The terms in the Joint Thesaurus are listed alphabetically. For each alphabetical entry, a "word block", containing the terms associated with this particular entry, is displayed. In the word block, terms that have a hierarchical relationship to the entry are identified by the symbols BT for Broader Term, and NT for Narrower Term; a term with an affinitive relationship is identified by RT, for Related Term; terms with a preferential relationship are identified by USE or SEE, and OF for Used For, and SF for Seen For. In case of multiple USE relationships for a forbidden term, all listed descriptors should be used to index or search a given concept. In case of multiple SEE relationships, one or more of the listed descriptors should be considered for indexing or searching this concept."

Footnote

The latest version of the Joint INIS/ETDEThesaurus has been published, English on paper, Multilingual (Arabic-Chinese-English-French-GermanRussian-Spanish) on CD: Joint Thesaurus Part I (A-L) and Part II (M-Z) ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series No. 1 (Rev. 2) The ETDE/INIS Joint Thesaurus (Rev. 2) contains the controlled terminology for indexing all information within the subject scope of INIS and the Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE). The terminology is used in subject descriptions for input to, or retrieval of, information in these systems. The Joint Thesaurus is the result of continued editing in parallel to the processing of the INIS and ETDE databases. With updates to September 2006 Rev. 2 includes 21147 valid descriptors and 9114 forbidden terms. IAEA-ETDE/INIS-1 (Rev. 2), 1221 p., 2007, ISBN 92-0-102207-7, English. 120.00 Euro. Date of Issue: 10 May 2007.

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 60(2007) H.3, S.103-104

0.14060028 = product of:
  0.28120056 = sum of:
    0.21078834 = weight(_text_:joint in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21078834 = score(doc=218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.48274595 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
    0.07041222 = weight(_text_:und in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07041222 = score(doc=218,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.4538307 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die International Mathematical Union (IMU) hat in Kooperation mit dem "International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM)" und dem "Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)" einen Bericht mit dem Titel Citation Statistics herausgegeben, für den das "Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research", bestehend aus Robert Adler, John Ewing (Chair) und Peter Taylor verantwortlich zeichnet. Wir drucken im Folgenden zunächst das "Executive Summary" dieses Berichts ab und geben anschließend einen Überblick über einige der wichtigsten Argumente und Ergebnisse des Berichts. Die darin wiedergegebenen Tabellen und Grafiken sind dem Bericht entnommen, wir danken den Autoren für die Genehmigung des Abdrucks des Executive Summary und dieser Tabellen und Grafiken. Soweit wir den Bericht in Übersetzung zitieren, handelt es sich nicht um eine autorisierte Übersetzung.

0.13962226 = product of:
  0.2792445 = sum of:
    0.1505631 = weight(_text_:joint in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1505631 = score(doc=4179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.34481853 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
    0.1286814 = weight(_text_:headings in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1286814 = score(doc=4179,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

There are many advantages for Digital Libraries in indexing with classifications or thesauri, but some current disincentive in the lack of flexible retrieval tools that deal with compound descriptors. This paper discusses a matching function for compound descriptors, or multi-concept subject headings, that does not rely an exact matching but incorporates term expansion via thesaurus semantic relationships to produce ranked results that take account of missing and partially matching terms. The matching function is based an a measure of semantic closeness between terms, which has the potential to help with recall problems. The work reported is part of the ongoing FACET project in collaboration with the National Museum of Science and Industry and its collections database. The architecture of the prototype system and its Interface are outlined. The matching problem for compound descriptors is reviewed and the FACET implementation described. Results are discussed from scenarios using the faceted Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus. We argue that automatic traversal of thesaurus relationships can augment the user's browsing possibilities. The techniques can be applied both to unstructured multi-concept subject headings and potentially to more syntactically structured strings. The notion of a focus term is used by the matching function to model AAT modified descriptors (noun phrases). The relevance of the approach to precoordinated indexing and matching faceted strings is discussed.

Source

Proceedings of the Second ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries : JCDL 2002 ; July 14 - 18, 2002, Portland, Oregon, USA. Ed. by Gary Marchionini

0.13094798 = product of:
  0.1745973 = sum of:
    0.06022524 = weight(_text_:joint in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022524 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.13792741 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
    0.025218967 = weight(_text_:und in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025218967 = score(doc=3312,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.16254483 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
    0.08915309 = weight(_text_:headings in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08915309 = score(doc=3312,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.2626439 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

BK

06.04 / Ausbildung, Beruf, Organisationen <Information und Dokumentation>

Classification

06.04 / Ausbildung, Beruf, Organisationen <Information und Dokumentation>

Footnote

The next section collects three papers, all presented at the meeting by the people best placed to address the topics authoritatively and comprehensively. The first is by John D. Byrum, of the Library of Congress, and Chair of the ISBD Review Group, who clearly and concisely explains the history and role of the ISBDs in "IFLA's ISBD Programme. Purpose, process, and prospects." The next paper, "Brave new FRBR world" is by Patrick Le Boeuf, of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and Chair of the FRBR Review Group (a French version is available an the website). Drawing from his extensive expertise with FRBR, Le Boeuf explains what FRBR is and equally importantly is not, points to its impact in the present context of Code revision, and discusses insights relevant to the working group topics that can be drawn from FRBR. Closing this section is Barbara Tillett's contribution "A Virtual International Authority File," which signals an important change in thinking about international cooperation for bibliographic control. Earlier efforts focussed an getting agreement about form and structure of headings, this view stresses linking authority files to share the intellectual effort yet present headings to the user in the form that is most appropriate culturally.
The section of background papers starts most appropriately by reprinting the Statement of Principles from the 1961 Paris Conference and continues with another twelve papers of varying lengths, most written specifically for the IME ICC. For the published report the papers have been organized to follow the order of topics assigned to the Tive working groups: Working Group 1 Personal names; WG2 Corporate bodies; WG3 Seriality; WG4 Multivolume/multipart structures; and WG5 Uniform titles, GMDs. Pino Buizza and Mauro Guerrini co-author a substantial paper "Author and title access point control: On the way national bibliographic agencies face the issue forty years after the Paris Principles," which was first presented in Italian at the November 2002 workshop an Cataloguing and Authority Control in Rome. Issues that remain unresolved are which name or title to adopt, which form of the name or title, and which entry word to select, while choice of headings has become more uniform. The impact of catalogue language (meaning both the language of the cataloguing agency and of the majority of users of the catalogue) an these choices is explored by examining the headings used in ten national authority files for a full range of names, personal and corporate. The reflections presented are both practical and grounded in theory. Mauro Guerrini, assisted by Pino Buizza and Lucia Sardo, contributes a further new paper "Corporate bodies from ICCP up to 2003," which is an excellent survey of the surprisingly controversial issue of corporate bodies as authors, starting with Panizzi, Jewett, Cutter, Dziatzko, Fumagalli, and Lubetzky, through the debate at the Paris Conference, to the views of Verona, Domanovszky and Carpenter, and work under the auspices of IFLA an the Form and structure of corporate headings (FSCH) project and its Rvew, as well as a look at the archival standard ISAAR(CPF). This paper is the only one to have a comprehensive bibliography.
Ton Heijligers reflects an the relation of the IME ICC effort to AACR and calls for an examination of the principles and function of the concept of main entry in his brief paper "Main entry into the future?" Ingrid Parent's article "From ISBD (S) to ISBD(CR): a voyage of discovery and alignment" is reprinted from Serials Librarian as it tells of the successful project not only to revise an ISBD, but also to harmonize three Codes for serials cataloguing: ISBD (CR), ISSN and AACR. Gunilla Jonsson's paper "The bibliographic unit in the digital context" is a perceptive discussion of level of granularity issues which must be addressed in deciding what to catalogue. Practical issues and user expectation are important considerations, whether the material to be catalogued is digital or analog. Ann Huthwaite's paper "Class of materials concept and GMDs" as well as Tom Delsey's ensuing comments, originated as Joint Steering Committee restricted papers in 2002. It is a great service to have them made widely available in this form as they raise fundamental issues and motivate work that has since taken place, leading to the current major round of revision to AACR. The GMD issue is about more than a list of terms and their placement in the cataloguing record, it is intertwined with consideration of whether the concept of classes of materials is helpful in organizing cataloguing rules, if so, which classes are needed, and how to allow for eventual integration of new types of materials. Useful in the Code comparison exercise is an extract of the section an access points from the draft of revised RAK (German cataloguing rules). Four short papers compare aspects of the Russian Cataloguing Rules with RAK and AACR: Tatiana Maskhoulia covers corporate body headings; Elena Zagorskaya outlines current development an serials and other continuing resources; Natalia N. Kasparova covers multilevel structures; Ljubov Ermakova and Tamara Bakhturina describe the uniform title and GMD provisions. The website includes one more item by Kasparova "Bibliographic record language in multilingual electronic communication." The volume is rounded out by the appendix which includes the conference agenda, the full list of participants, and the reports from the five working groups. Not for the casual reader, this volume is a must read for anyone working an cataloguing code development at the national or international levels, as well as those teaching cataloguing. Any practising cataloguer will benefit from reading the draft statement of principles and the three presentation papers, and dipping into the background papers."
Weitere Rez. in: ZfBB 52(2005) H.3/4, S.227-228 (K. Haller): " ... Im Mittelpunkt der Publikation steht das revidierte Statement of International Cataloguing Principles. Es wendet sich mit seinen Grundsätzen gleichermaßen an Bibliografien und Bibliothekskataloge sowie Datensammlungen in Archiven, Museen und dergleichen Einrichtungen. Terminologisch und inhaltlich geht das Statement von den Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) aus. Durch die Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) werden die Normdateien und die Sacherschließung in das Statement eingebracht. Die FRBR sind ein theoretisches Modell, ein strategisches Dokument, in dem durch die Entitäten die logischen Zusammenhänge dargestellt und damit die notwendi ge Erschließungsqualität definiert wird. Es geht um klare Grundsätze für Wahl, Anzahl und Art der Suchbegriffe (access points) und deren Beziehungen. ... Insgesamt ist die Publikation sehr zu begrüßen und als Pflichtlektüre allen Verantwortlichen im Erschließungsbereich und dem in Ausbildung befindlichen Nachwuchs dringend zu empfehlen."

0.120777294 = product of:
  0.24155459 = sum of:
    0.1505631 = weight(_text_:joint in 485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1505631 = score(doc=485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.34481853 = fieldWeight in 485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=485)
    0.09099149 = weight(_text_:headings in 485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099149 = score(doc=485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 485, 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=485)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

For almost 20 years, the National Bibliographic Network (Red Nacional de Información Bibliográfica (RENIB)) has been the driving force of library networking and resource sharing in Chile. Administratively dependent on the National Library (Biblioteca Nacional) and also physically located on its premises, RENIB has been very successful in bringing together librarians from most of the major Chilean libraries and in obtaining their cooperation for a number of important joint projects. The most important among these was the development of the national union catalog, which provides access to the holdings of all member libraries. An earlier project resulted in the online union list of periodicals, developed jointly with the National Commission of Scientific and Technological Research (Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT)), which contains periodical records and detailed holdings data of twenty-four universities. As the bibliographic database was being planned, RENIB personnel anticipated the need for a centralized authorities database in order to maintain consistency and uniform standards. Participating libraries provided expert staff members who work jointly with RENIB in teams that build and maintain headings for names, subjects, series, uniform titles, and subdivisions and resolve conflicts. RENIB provided documentation and training and, especially, the organizational structure that now allows for continuing cooperation among institutions that, traditionally, had not worked together.

0.120777294 = product of:
  0.24155459 = sum of:
    0.1505631 = weight(_text_:joint in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1505631 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.34481853 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
    0.09099149 = weight(_text_:headings in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099149 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.1205955 = product of:
  0.241191 = sum of:
    0.022811413 = weight(_text_:und in 6600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022811413 = score(doc=6600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 6600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6600)
    0.21837959 = weight(_text_:headings in 6600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21837959 = score(doc=6600,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.64334357 = fieldWeight in 6600, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6600)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The history of the Library of Congress Subject Headings is traced, from its beginnings with the implementation of a dictionary catalog at the Library of Congress in 1898 to the present day. The author describes the most significant changes which have occurred in LCSH policies and practices during the 100-year period. Events noted near the end of the century indicate an increased willingness on the part of' the Library of Congress to involve the larger library community in the creation or revision of subject headings and other decision-making regarding the LCSH system. Finally, the author provides a summary of the other contributions to this collection of essays, a collection which celebrates the "centennial" of the world's most popular library subject heading language

Content

Mit einer Publikationsgeschichte der LCSH (vgl. Tabellen) und dazu gehörenden Publikationen

Source

The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T.Stone

0.1205955 = product of:
  0.241191 = sum of:
    0.022811413 = weight(_text_:und in 6921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022811413 = score(doc=6921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 6921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6921)
    0.21837959 = weight(_text_:headings in 6921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21837959 = score(doc=6921,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.64334357 = fieldWeight in 6921, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6921)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Surveys conducted during the last four years under the auspices of the International Federation of Library Associations and Organizations (IFLA) reveal that the Library of Congress Subject Headings is heavily used in national libraries outside of the United States, particularly in English-speaking countries. Many other countries report using a translation or adaptation of LCSH as their principal subject heading language. Magda Heiner-Freiling presents an analysis of the IFLA data, which also includes information on the classification schemes used by the libraries and whether or not the libraries have produced a manual on the creation and application of subject headings. The paper concludes with an Appendix showing the complete data from the 88 national libraries that respond to the surveys

Content

Mit einer tabellarischen Übersicht der eingesetzten Systeme und Regeln

Object

Sears List of Subject Headings

Source

The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T.Stone

0.118700825 = product of:
  0.23740165 = sum of:
    0.21078834 = weight(_text_:joint in 4062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21078834 = score(doc=4062,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.48274595 = fieldWeight in 4062, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4062)
    0.026613316 = weight(_text_:und in 4062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026613316 = score(doc=4062,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.17153187 = fieldWeight in 4062, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4062)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Until recently, most research an music information retrieval concentrated an monophonic music. Online Music Retrieval and Searching (OMRAS) is a threeyear project funded under the auspices of the JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee)/NSF (National Science Foundation) International Digital Library Initiative which began in 1999 and whose remit was to investigate the issues surrounding polyphonic music information retrieval. Here we outline the work OMRAS has achieved in pattern matching, document retrieval, and audio transcription, as weIl as some prototype work in how to implement these techniques into library systems.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zur Musikerschließung und zum Musikretrieval

0.11815274 = product of:
  0.23630548 = sum of:
    0.030415218 = weight(_text_:und in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030415218 = score(doc=1130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.19603643 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
    0.20589025 = weight(_text_:headings in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20589025 = score(doc=1130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.60655016 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

LCSH

Subject headings / Terminology

Subject

Subject headings / Terminology

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.10539417 = product of:
  0.42157668 = sum of:
    0.42157668 = weight(_text_:joint in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.42157668 = score(doc=2070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.9654919 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Editor

Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules

0.10195732 = product of:
  0.20391464 = sum of:
    0.14904988 = weight(_text_:joint in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14904988 = score(doc=5767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.34135294 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.054864757 = weight(_text_:und in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054864757 = score(doc=5767,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.35362202 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Der folgende Text stellt die leicht überarbeitete Fassung eines Referats dar, das die Verfasserin am 19. Mai 2005 auf der Sitzung der Sektion IV des DBV in Heidelberg vorgetragen hat. Es enthält eine deutliche Kritik an den Migrationsbestrebungen der Deutschen Bibliothek und des Standardisierungsausschusses und fordert die Fertigstellung von RAK2. Die anwesenden Mitglieder der Sektion IV unterstützten diese Position mit großer Mehrheit bei nur fünf Enthaltungen und einer Gegenstimme. Zwei Monate später reagierte die Deutsche Bibliothek auf dieses Referat mit einem offenen Brief an die Autorin. Bedauerlicherweise geht die Deutsche Bibliothek in ihrem Schreiben nicht auf die in dem Vortrag formulierten entscheidenden Kritikpunkte an den Migrationsplänen bzw. vorhersehbaren Migrationsfolgen ein: Zu hohe Kosten, Verhinderung notwendiger Innovationen, fehlender Nutzen für die Nutzer, Vernichtung von Medienerwerbungsmitteln, Inkonsistenz der Kataloge sowie unzureichende Beteiligung der bibliothekarischen Öffentlichkeit. Fast gleichzeitig mit diesen Ereignissen entstand der Eindruck, als sei die ganze Debatte Schnee von gestern. Was war geschehen? Unsere amerikanischen Kollegen hatten die vom Joint Steering Committee vorgelegten Entwürfe für AACR3 als unmodern, unabgestimmt und nicht mit anderen Standards zusammen passend (!) scharf kritisiert. Anders als in Deutschland, wo die begründete fachliche Kritik an den Migrationsplänen konsequent ignoriert wird, hat das Joint Steering Committee auf die Anregungen der bibliothekarischen Öffentlichkeit reagiert und seine Entwürfe zurückgezogen. Damit waren auch die Migrationsvorstellungen des Standardisierungsausschusses Makulatur und die in diese Diskussion investierten Energien und Kosten vergebens. Die neuen Pläne der Amerikaner heißen RDA, Resource Description and Access. Von RDA erhofft man sich, dass sie moderner, schlanker und zeitgemäßer seien als AACR2. Die Fertigstellung ist für 2008 vorgesehen. Ob der Zeitplan eingehalten werden kann, ist angesichts der vorausgegangenen Erfahrungen mit AACR mehr als zweifelhaft.
In einer Informationsveranstaltung im Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen in Köln hat die Deutsche Bibliothek am 11. November 2005 unter dem Titel "RAK, RSWK, AACR, IME-ICC, RDA - Wohin geht die Regelwerksentwicklung?" die neuen Pläne vorgestellt. Kompetente Bibliothekare gewannen dabei den Eindruck, dass die Katalogisierung durch RDA nicht einfacher, sondern im Gegenteil komplexer, komplizierter und damit auch zeitaufwändiger würde. Ganz unabhängig davon, ob die RDA unseren Vorstellungen entsprechen werden oder nicht, die deutschen Bibliotheken verlieren weitere vier, fünf oder mehr Jahre für die seit langem gewollte Modernisierung und Vereinfachung ihrer Katalogisierungsarbeiten. Durch den Verzicht auf die Ausarbeitung und Einführung der schon seit 1993 vorliegenden deutschen Regelwerksreform, RAK2 bzw. RAK-Online, das sklavische Sich-abhängig-machen von einer kaum zu beeinflussenden und nicht kalkulierbaren internationalen Entwicklung sowie das systematische Ignorieren berechtigter Fachkritik hat eine jahrzehntelange Verschleppung der dringend erforderlichen Rationalisierung der Katalogisierung zur Folge und stellt damit eine große Verschwendung an Personalressourcen und Steuermitteln dar. Die Migration nach AACR2/3 ist Schnee von gestern, nicht jedoch die Kritik der Umstiegsskeptiker an der Vorgehensweise der Deutschen Bibliothek und des Standardisierungsausschusses und die Fragen nach der Wirtschaftlichkeit und dem Nutzen des nun zur Debatte stehenden Regelwerks RDA. Der nachfolgende Text meines Vortrags bleibt deshalb ebenso wie die schon vor Jahren geäußerte Kritik an den Migrationsplänen mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit weiter aktuell, sofern man die Abkürzung AACR gegen RDA austauscht oder diese ergänzt.

0.10174357 = product of:
  0.20348714 = sum of:
    0.18067573 = weight(_text_:joint in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18067573 = score(doc=7,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.41378224 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
    0.022811413 = weight(_text_:und in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022811413 = score(doc=7,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Long term preservation of digital information poses critical new problems in all modern society business sectors. The Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System, soon to become an ISO standard, provides us with a vocabulary and a set of unifying concepts which can be used to understand the problem as a whole and also to enable communities, which were previously completely unknown to each other, to become acquainted and consult together on the joint solutions which may be envisaged. This Model does not constitute an implementation diagram, however, it is a permanent conceptual background for all implementations. Now we can use this background as an aid to improve analysis of past difficulties encountered in the preservation of digital information in the space field. The primary pragmatic rules implemented to counteract these difficulties may be described and analyzed in the light of the OAIS RM concepts

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 48(2001) H.3/4, S.188-193

0.10070913 = product of:
  0.40283653 = sum of:
    0.40283653 = weight(_text_:headings in 1176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.40283653 = score(doc=1176,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        1.1867515 = fieldWeight in 1176, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1176)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Form headings
Subject headings / Literary form
Subject headings / Literature
Subject headings / Motion pictures
Subject headings / Television programs

Subject

Form headings
Subject headings / Literary form
Subject headings / Literature
Subject headings / Motion pictures
Subject headings / Television programs

0.09662184 = product of:
  0.19324368 = sum of:
    0.12045048 = weight(_text_:joint in 4965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12045048 = score(doc=4965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.27585483 = fieldWeight in 4965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4965)
    0.07279319 = weight(_text_:headings in 4965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07279319 = score(doc=4965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 4965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4965)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Iter ("journey" or "path" in Latin) is a non-profit project for providing electronic access to materials pertaining to the Middle Ages and Renaissance (400-1700). Iter's background is described, and its centrepiece, the Iter Bibliography, is explicated. Emphasis is an the subject cataloguing process and an subject access to records for journal articles (using Library of Congress Subject Headings and the Dewey Decimal Classification). Basic subject analysis of the materials is provided by graduate students specializing in the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, and, subsequently, subject access points systems are provided by information professionals. This close cooperation between subject and information experts would not be efficient without electronic capabilities.

Content

"1. Iter: Gateway to the Middle Ages and Renaissance Iter is a non-profit research project dedicated to providing electronic access to all kinds and formats of materials pertaining to the Middle Ages and Renaissance (400-1700). Iter began in 1995 as a joint initiative of the Renaissance Society of America (RSA) in New York City and the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS), Univ. of Toronto. By 1997, three more partners had joined: Faculty of Information Studies (FIS), Univ. of Toronto; Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ACMRS), Arizona State Univ. at Tempe; and John P. Robarts Library, Univ. of Toronto. Iter was funded initially by the five partners and major foundations and, since 1998, has offered low-cost subscriptions to institutions and individuals. When Iter becomes financially self-sufficient, any profits will be used to enhance and expand the project. Iter databases are housed and maintained at the John P. Robarts Library. The interface is a customized version of DRA WebZ. A new interface using DRA Web can be searched now and will replace the DRA WebZ interface shortly. Iter was originally conceived as a comprehensive bibliography of secondary materials that would be an alternative to the existing commercial research tools for its period. These were expensive, generally appeared several years late, had limited subject indexing, were inconsistent in coverage, of uneven quality, and often depended an fragile networks of volunteers for identification of materials. The production of a reasonably priced, web-based, timely research tool was Iter's first priority. In addition, the partners wanted to involve graduate students in the project in order to contribute to the scholarly training and financial support of future scholars of the Middle Ages and Renaissance and to utilize as much automation as possible."

0.09662184 = product of:
  0.19324368 = sum of:
    0.12045048 = weight(_text_:joint in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12045048 = score(doc=1175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.27585483 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
    0.07279319 = weight(_text_:headings in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07279319 = score(doc=1175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

There are many advantages for Digital Libraries in indexing with classifications or thesauri, but some current disincentive in the lack of flexible retrieval tools that deal with compound descriptors. This demonstration of a research prototype illustrates a matching function for compound descriptors, or multi-concept subject headings, that does not rely on exact matching but incorporates term expansion via thesaurus semantic relationships to produce ranked results that take account of missing and partially matching terms. The matching function is based on a measure of semantic closeness between terms.The work is part of the EPSRC funded FACET project in collaboration with the UK National Museum of Science and Industry (NMSI) which includes the National Railway Museum. An export of NMSI's Collections Database is used as the dataset for the research. The J. Paul Getty Trust's Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) is the main thesaurus in the project. The AAT is a widely used thesaurus (over 120,000 terms). Descriptors are organised in 7 facets representing separate conceptual classes of terms.The FACET application is a multi tiered architecture accessing a SQL Server database, with an OLE DB connection. The thesauri are stored as relational tables in the Server's database. However, a key component of the system is a parallel representation of the underlying semantic network as an in-memory structure of thesaurus concepts (corresponding to preferred terms). The structure models the hierarchical and associative interrelationships of thesaurus concepts via weighted poly-hierarchical links. Its primary purpose is real-time semantic expansion of query terms, achieved by a spreading activation semantic closeness algorithm. Queries with associated results are stored persistently using XML format data. A Visual Basic interface combines a thesaurus browser and an initial term search facility that takes into account equivalence relationships. Terms are dragged to a direct manipulation Query Builder which maintains the facet structure.

Source

Proceedings of the Second ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries : JCDL 2002 ; July 14 - 18, 2002, Portland, Oregon, USA. Ed. by Gary Marchionini

0.0922427 = product of:
  0.1844854 = sum of:
    0.026883509 = weight(_text_:und in 26) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026883509 = score(doc=26,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.17327337 = fieldWeight in 26, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=26)
    0.1576019 = weight(_text_:headings in 26) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1576019 = score(doc=26,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.46429324 = fieldWeight in 26, 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=26)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Im Jahr 1898 begann die Library of Congress mit der Arbeit an einem Schlagwortkatalog - die Geburtsstunde der 'Library of Congress subject headings' (LCSH). Heute stellen die LCSH das zentrale Werkzeug zur verbalen inhaltlichen Erschließung in der gesamten angloamerikanischen Welt dar. Auch die Kritik an diesem Erschließungssystem hat eine lange Geschichte: Sie lässt sich bis in die Mitte des vergangenen Jahrhunderts zurückverfolgen und betraf im Lauf der Zeit recht unterschiedliche Aspekte. Neu an der Debatte der letzten Jahre ist, dass die Struktur der LCSH ganz grundsätzlich in Frage gestellt wird. Eine Projektgruppe der Bibliothek der University of California etwa urteilte 2005: "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." In einer für die Library of Congress erstellten Expertise mit dem Titel 'On the record' von 2008 heißt es: "LCSH suffers (...) from a structure that is cumbersome from both administrative and automation points of view". Es wird empfohlen, die LCSH in ein flexibleres Werkzeug zu verwandeln: "Transform LCSH into a tool that provides a more flexible means to create and modify subject authority data." Dies beinhaltet zum einen ein "de-coupling of subject strings", also eine 'Entkoppelung' der fest zusammengefügten (präkombinierten) Eintragungen, und zum anderen die Möglichkeit, das LCSH-Vokabular für "faceted browsing and discovery" nutzbar zu machen . Besonders drastische Worte wurden 2006 im sogenannten 'Calhoun Report' gefunden - einem Papier, das mit seinen radikalen Thesen in der amerikanischen Bibliothekswelt viel Aufsehen erregte: Man müsse die Library of Congress dazu bringen, die LCSH zu 'zerschlagen' ("urge LC to dismantle LCSH") - ja, sie gar zu 'eliminieren' ("eliminate LCSH").

0.090337865 = product of:
  0.36135146 = sum of:
    0.36135146 = weight(_text_:joint in 5051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36135146 = score(doc=5051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.8275645 = fieldWeight in 5051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5051)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)