Search (13455 results, page 5 of 673)

0.065483816 = product of:
  0.26193526 = sum of:
    0.26193526 = weight(_text_:heading in 478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26193526 = score(doc=478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.668324 = fieldWeight in 478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=478)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.065483816 = product of:
  0.26193526 = sum of:
    0.26193526 = weight(_text_:heading in 1245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26193526 = score(doc=1245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.668324 = fieldWeight in 1245, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1245)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Assigned topical and geographic subject headings from a sample of 3.814 bibliographic records in the University of Michigan Library's catalog were analyzed to determine the degree of match with LCSH, 10th edition and to idetify types of heading conflicts that lend themselves to automatic subject authority control. The findings showed a surprising degree of agreement: 44 percent of headings matched LCSH 10th completely. For headings without subdivisions, the match was 88,4 percent. Since 93,6 percent of the topical subdivisions that did not match LCSH were found on the free-floating lists, some consideration should be given to developing a machine-readable file of free-floating subdivisons for matching purposes.

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 1902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=1902,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 1902, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1902)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority records complement bibliographic records, providing cataloguers with essential subject heading and related information. At present there is no international format standard comparable to ISBD for bibliographic records, though IFLA and the International Archives Council have set up working groups. The essential data form comprises of subject heading, structure, homonyms, with supplementary supporting information. In France MARC formats are most widely used, e.g. UNIMARC(A) for authority records and (B) for bibliographic. The National Library (BNF) is introducing new cataloguing software based on the reorganisation of its authotity files, using integrated INTERMARC. As an experiments, readers will for the first time have access to authority files, thus enriching, completing and clarifying the bibliographic records

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 2166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=2166,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 2166, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2166)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The 'Guida all'indicizzazione per soggetto', the outcome of the work of the GRIS collaborative project of Italian research and academic libraries on subject heading schemes for Italian libraries, was published in 1996, though not in a definitive form. Presents some notes as a contribution to the definitive version, particularly section 3. The latter is concerned with the control of terms, including the analysis of categories, the morphology of terms and the structure of vocabulary

Object

GRIS subject heading scheme

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=4792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The book comprises the following chapters: Introduction; Basic concepts and data, definitions and terms; Codes for compilation of subject catalogues and subject heading lists in European and North American countries; codes for compilation of subject catalogues in Yoguslavia 1950-1990; Standards for the establishment of monolingual thesauri and standards for subject cataloguing; Theoretical bases of principles and of fundamental rules for subject cataloguing displayed in contemporary scientific works; Theory of classified and alphabetical subject catalogues; Syntactical systems for subject designation

Content

Übers. des Titels: Theoretical foundations of a system for subject heading assignments

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 6608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=6608,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 6608, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6608)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the problems in establishing commonly accepted principles for subject retrieval between different bibliographic systems. The Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages was established to devise general principles for any subject retrieval system and to review existing real systems in the light of such principles and compare them in order to evaluate the extent of their coverage and their application in current practices. Provides a background and history of the Working Group. Discusses the principles underlying subject headings and their purposes and the state of the work and major findings

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=417,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Southeast Asia is an important and populous region with an extensive literature. Many libraries in the United States and Canada have large or moderate collections of Southeast Asia materials. Yet the Library of Congress has not provided sufficient subject heading period subdivisions for the area. Additional subdivisons are proposed in detail for: Asia, Southeastern; Indonesia; Malaysia; Singapore; Philippines; Thailand; Indochina; Vietnam; Cambodia; Laos; and Burma. The historical and/or logical justification for the proposed additions follow each area. The function of the essay is not to present absolute answer, but to promote awareness of the problem and to suggest reasonable alternatives.

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=501,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An examination of subject heading practices in the card catalogs of libraries in one New York State county and an analysis of selected subject headings found that only the largest libraries were able to provide any kind of subject authority control. Furthermore, not even the largest libraries were able to provide the "See Also" references upon which the Library of Congress assignment of subject headings is based. Changes in LCSH headings resulted in great confusion and a dispersal of resources in the smaller libraries. Is this situation typical of practices at other libraries in other parts of the United States? If so, the implications could be very serious. The study offers no answers, but raises important questions.

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=507,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Cataloging departments must weigh the goal of high quality cataloging against the need to make materials available to the patron in a timely, cost effective fashion. Many cataloging departments still review and revise subject headings assigned by OCLC member libraries to achieve quality cataloging for their libraries. This study evaluates this procedure and compares the number of subject heading revisions made to OCLC cooperative cataloging copy input by research, academic and public libraries. Percentages of revisions did not differ greatly among the three types of libraries and were lower than expected. A reassessment of the library's procedures was recommended and several issues that all libraries should consider were enumerated.

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 3201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=3201,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 3201, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3201)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Magda Heiner-Freiling was an exceptional person, and her participation with the Section on Classification and Indexing helped to produce valuable publications as well as contributing to a very pleasant working environment. She participated in and contributed to a satellite meeting on subject indexing, in a Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages, and in surveying national libraries and national bibliographies on subject heading languages and classification systems used. She brought many excellent qualities to her work.

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=3991,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a survey examining the extent to which working catalogers use Classification Web, the Library of Congress' online resource for subject heading and classification documentation. An earlier survey analyzed Class Web's usefulness on an institutional level. This broader survey expands on that analysis and provides information on such questions as: what types of institutions subscribe to Class Web; what are the reasons for using Class Web when performing original or copy cataloging; and what other resources do catalogers use for classification/subject heading analysis?

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=167,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article argues that the use of the Library of Congress subject heading "East Indians" in reference to individuals from India represents not only a problematic vestige of colonialism, but also a failure of the principle of literary warrant. It provides an overview of the term's historical roots and then examines whether the term is still widely used in published resources. Although assigning a subject heading is not easy and can involve a choice between contested realities of diverse peoples, the author contends that a rejection of outdated terminology is central to providing any culturally sensitive tool for resource organization.

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 2445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=2445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 2445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2445)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 3299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=3299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

State of the art review of the criteria used to judge and evaluate the quality of databases, including: content, ease of use, accessibility, customer support, documentation, and value to cost ratio. Concludes that the principle factor governing quality is content, defined by the scope and the coverage of the database and its currency, accuracy, consistency and completeness. Scope is determined by its composition and coverage, including time period, number of periodicals and other primary sources, number of articles and geographic and language distribution. Currency is measured by the time lag between publication of the primary source and availability of the corresponding records in the database. Accuracy is governed by the extent to which the records are free from errors of all types. Consistency depends on the extent to which records within the database follow the same rules. Completeness is measured by the consistency with which applicable data elements are assigned to all the records in the database. Reviews the major contributions to the literature in the field and summarizes the background of milestone studies

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=3210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this report, we investigate how retrieving information can be improved through task-related indexing of documents based an ontologies. Different index types, varying from content-based keywords to structured task based indexing ontologies, are compared in an experiment that simulates the task of creating instructional material from a database of source material. To be able to judge the added value of task- and ontology-related indexes, traditional information retrieval performance measures are extended with new measures reflecting the quality of the material produced with the retrieved information. The results of the experiment show that a structured task-based indexing ontology improves the quality of the product created from retrieved material only to some extent, but that it certainly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of search and retrieval and precision of use.

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 3235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=3235,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3235, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3235)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article describes a collaboratively engineered general-purpose knowledge management (KM) ontology that can be used by practitioners, researchers, and educators. The ontology is formally characterized in terms of nearly one hundred definitions and axioms that evolved from a Delphi-like process involving a diverse panel of over 30 KM practitioners and researchers. The ontology identifies and relates knowledge manipulation activities that an entity (e.g., an organization) can perform to operate an knowledge resources. It introduces a taxonomy for these resources, which indicates classes of knowledge that may be stored, embedded, and/or represented in an entity. It recognizes factors that influence the conduct of KM both within and across KM episodes. The Delphi panelists judge the ontology favorably overall: its ability to unify KM concepts, its comprehensiveness, and utility. Moreover, various implications of the ontology for the KM field are examined as indicators of its utility for practitioners, educators, and researchers.

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this issue Maglaughin and Sonnenwald provided 12 graduate students with searches related to the student's work and asked them to judge the twenty most recent retrieved representations by highlighting passages thought to contribute to relevance, marking out passages detracting from relevance, and providing a relevant, partially relevant or relevant judgement on each. By recorded interview they were asked about how these decisions were made and to describe the three classes of judgement. The union of criteria identified in past studies did not seem to fully capture the information supplied so a new set was produced and coding agreement found to be adequate. Twenty-nine criteria were identified and grouped into six categories based upon the focus of the criterion. Multiple criteria are used for most judgements, and most criteria may have either a positive or negative effect. Content was the most frequently mentioned criterion.

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explicates the common ground between two currently independent fields of inquiry, namely information arts and information science, and suggests a framework that could unite them as a single field of study. The article defines and clarifies the meaning of information art and presents an axiological framework that could be used to judge the value of works of information art. The axiological framework is applied to examples of works of information art to demonstrate its use. The article argues that both information arts and information science could be studied under a common framework; namely, the domain-analytic or sociocognitive approach. It also is argued that the unification of the two fields could help enhance the meaning and scope of both information science and information arts and therefore be beneficial to both fields.

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=1938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 1938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1938)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article introduces a new task-based evaluation measure called Relevance Prediction that is a more intuitive measure of an individual's performance on a real-world task than interannotator agreement. Relevance Prediction parallels what a user does in the real world task of browsing a set of documents using standard search tools, i.e., the user judges relevance based on a short summary and then that same user - not an independent user - decides whether to open (and judge) the corresponding document. This measure is shown to be a more reliable measure of task performance than LDC Agreement, a current gold-standard based measure used in the summarization evaluation community. Our goal is to provide a stable framework within which developers of new automatic measures may make stronger statistical statements about the effectiveness of their measures in predicting summary usefulness. We demonstrate - as a proof-of-concept methodology for automatic metric developers - that a current automatic evaluation measure has a better correlation with Relevance Prediction than with LDC Agreement and that the significance level for detected differences is higher for the former than for the latter.