Using Clustering Across Union Catalogues to Enrich Entries with Indexing Information

  • Magnus Pfeffer
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)


The federal system in Germany has created a segmented library landscape. Instead of a central entity responsible for cataloguing and indexing, regional library unions share the workload cooperatively among their members. One result of this approach is limited sharing of cataloguing and indexing information across union catalogues as well as heterogeneous indexing of items with almost equivalent content: different editions of the same work. In this paper, a method for clustering entries in library catalogues is proposed that can be used to reduce this heterogeneity as well as share indexing information across catalogue boundaries. In two experiments, the method is applied to several union catalogues and the results show that a surprisingly large number of previously not indexed entries can be enriched with indexing information. The quality of the indexing has been positively evaluated by human professionals and the results have already been imported into the production catalogues of two library unions.


Indexing Information Catalogue Data Corporate Body Library Catalogue Production Catalogue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Dewey, M. (2005). Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation und Register, Mitchell J. S. (Ed.). Munich: Saur.Google Scholar
  2. Dickey, T. J. (2008). FRBRization of a library catalog: better collocation of records, leading to enhanced search, retrieval, and display. Information Technology and Libraries, 27(1), 23–32.Google Scholar
  3. Eckert, K. (2010). Linked open projects: Nachnutzung von Projektergebnissen als Linked Data. In: M. Ockenfeld et al. (Eds.), Semantic Web & Linked Data: Elemente zukünftiger Informationsstrukturen; 1. DGI-Konferenz, proceedings (pp. 231–236). Frankfurt: DGI.Google Scholar
  4. Hickey, T. B., O’Neill, E. T., & Toves, J. (2002). Experiments with the IFLA functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR). D-Lib Magazine, 8(9).Google Scholar
  5. Lorenz, B. (2008). Handbuch zur Regensburger Verbundklassifikation: Materialien zur Einführung (2nd edn). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
  6. Lux, C. (2003) The German library system: structure and new developments. IFLA Journal, 29(2), 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pfeffer, M. (2010). Automatische Vergabe von RVK-Notationen mittels fallbasiertem Schließen. In: U. Hohoff et al. (Eds.), 97. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Mannheim 2008 - Wissen bewegen. Bibliotheken in der Informationsgesellschaft, proceedings (pp. 245–254). Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  8. Scheven, E., Kunz, M., & Bellgardt, S. (Eds.) (2012). Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog: RSWK. Frankfurt: Dt. Nationalbibliothek.Google Scholar
  9. Sitas, A., & Kapidakis, S. (2008). Duplicate detection algorithms of bibliographic descriptions. Library Hi Tech, 26(2), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Taniguchi, S. (2009). Automatic identification of “Works” toward construction of FRBRized OPACs: An experiment on JAPAN/MARC bibliographic records. Library and Information Science, 61, 119–151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stuttgart Media UniversityStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations