Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.038344346 = product of:
  0.07668869 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.03712163 = product of:
  0.07424326 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1422)
    0.067376986 = sum of:
      0.040054493 = weight(_text_:organization in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040054493 = score(doc=1422,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.22283478 = fieldWeight in 1422, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1422)
      0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027322493 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1422, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1422)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose A higher level of retrieval relevance along with pertinence is what information systems are required to provide if they are to gain more user satisfaction. Although in almost every IR system, general and non-topical terms are not considered to play a major role in indexing, the underlying assumption of current study stems from the fact that these terms could be effective in better searching by end-users. Thus this paper aims at proposing a new approach in this regard using a small thesaurus of general and non-topical terms which can be used along with queries (i.e., topical keywords). This would help making users' queries closer to natural language. Method In the first phase of this study, a set of 669 non-topical terms, which were identified through a previous study, was assumed as the test bed. Based on the main goal of the present paper, the list was analyzed and divided into major categories. As for the second phase, a preferred label representing each category was selected and assigned based on its "use warrant"; and to this end Google Trends was applied for determining the most-frequent general and non-topical terms among users' web searches. At last the developed thesaurus was tested in searching and the retrieved results were evaluated in terms of relevance and pertinence. Results The findings of this study show that, although there is rather a diverse range of general and non-topical terms appearing before or after topical keywords in Web documents, users are still using no or only a small fracture of them in their search queries. The findings also show that these terms would be of great assistance in providing more relevant results and a meaningful display of the results. This paper then proposes a conceptual model for applying such a thesaurus in searching the Web.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.027384182 = product of:
  0.10953673 = sum of:
    0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10953673 = score(doc=3828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Suggests that an appropriate approach in comparing online and card catalogues is to compare the 2 in relation to the processes in which bibliographic records are created (the input stage), manipulated (the storage stage) and retrieved (the output stage). Studies the concepts underlying these processes and reveals major differences between online and card catalogues. These differences are multiplied and widened when moving from input to output to such an extent that online catalogues can be considered as a significant departure from manual catalogues. The redesign for use in an online environment of bibliographical standards which are based on the card catalogue should be based on conceptual as well as practical differences between the online and card catalogues

0.026016558 = product of:
  0.052033115 = sum of:
    0.034331363 = weight(_text_:information in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034331363 = score(doc=617,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.38790947 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Information, owing to its nature, has numerous capabilities. Through utilizing these capabilities, information systems can add to the value of information. The purpose of this paper is to explain where and how added value emerges from the work processes in library and information professions. Design/methodology/approach - The paper begins with a review of the related literature and then takes a conceptual approach to discuss different values of information and IR systems; elaborates on how each of the processes such as assessment of needs, selection, description/organization, storage/processing, search/retrieval, and dissemination generate capabilities that lead to added value. Findings - The paper identifies that added value is generated through processes such as reproduction, exchange, transfer, refinement, analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and regeneration of information. Many such processes turn information into knowledge. Research limitations/implications - This paper is based on the author's reflections on the matter of added value generated by library and information practice. Further empirical studies are needed to substantiate the extent to which such values are generated through information systems and services in the real world. Practical implications - Librarians and information specialists can find through their working practice how to design systems and services which can generate added value for information. Originality/value - In the present evolving conditions, library and information professionals are able to add to the value of information by sharing their knowledge with the expertise of computer scientists and finding a variety of ways and up-to-date methods of optimizing existing systems, as well as designing new systems. These are the two strategies along which the profession should guide its educational, research and practical endeavors.

Theme

Information

0.023472156 = product of:
  0.093888626 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 6431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=6431,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 6431, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6431)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Online catalogues and card catalogues can be compared from different perspectives and according to different criteria. Compares the 2 types of catalogue according to the processes in which bibliographic records are created (input stage), manipulated (storage stage) and retrieval (output stage). The concepts underlying these stages are studied, revealing major differences between online and card catalogues, which are multiplied and widened when moving from input and output stage to such an extent that online catalogues can be considered as a significant departure from manual catalogues. The redesign for use in the online environment of bibliographic standards (cataloguing codes, MARC formats and ISBDs) which have been based on the concept of the card catalogue should instead be based on the conceptual as well as the practical differences between the online and the card catalogue

0.019621588 = product of:
  0.039243177 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2693, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2693)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 2693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=2693,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 2693, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The computer technology has considerable potential for better and more efficient management of knowledge and information sources. It is possible to provide easy, integrated and straightforward access to works of knowledge appearing in different expressions, editions, and manifestations (i.e., to bibliographic families). The online environment requires that the bibliographic record, as the surrogate for works of knowledge, should be restructured to provide users with a high-quality finding, identifying and collocating bibliographic tool. Unlike the existing flat structure, the multi-level structure of the Work Record would provide catalog users with the ability to discover if a work has been published/represented in different editions and manifestations and if there is any relationship among different works in a catalog or an the Internet. A similar structure for the Author Record would provide better access to different works by an author or about an author. A new structure for the bibliographic record is suggested through an analysis and categorization of the different relationships that exist in the bibliographic universe. A prototype catalogue developed based an the new structure (available an the Internet at: http://wilma.silas.unsw.edu.au/ students/rfattahi/super.html) illustrates the ability of providing multi-level, yet easy access to voluminous works and voluminous authors. Furthermore, the prototype catalog provides a clearer picture of bibliographic families and helps OPAC users decide an specific editions, manifestations, or items related to a specific work.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.018586013 = product of:
  0.037172027 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 1101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=1101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1101)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 1101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=1101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 1101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Similar to information and knowledge, data and especially big data are now known as one of the most vital elements in the 21st century since they provide multiple capabilities to individuals and organizations. However, in comparison to some theories about information and knowledge, there are no significant attempts in most scientific disciplines for building theories about data. This paper first reviews the different definitions provided about the concept of data in the works of scholars. It then identifies and explores the philosophical aspects as well as the multiple capabilities/features that can be derived from data. Finally, a starter list of some basic/general theories is developed based on the capabilities and features of data. Such new theories can be used as meta-theories to extend data theories for various scientific disciplines. The important notion supporting the development of theories about data is that, if data is so important and if data science is to continue flourishing in a variety of specialized fields and trends, then we need to build relevant theories about data for research and practical purposes in a multi-disciplinary context.

Content

Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-3/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-3.

Source

Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.3, S.141 - 150

0.0062585147 = product of:
  0.025034059 = sum of:
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13

Source

Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan

0.0056770155 = product of:
  0.022708062 = sum of:
    0.022708062 = weight(_text_:information in 4673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022708062 = score(doc=4673,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 4673, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4673)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The advent and development of the Internet has changed students' pattern of information seeking behaviors. That is also the case in Iran. The current research was carried out by interviewing with and observing of 20 intermediate girl students to assess their information seeking behavior on the web environment through a qualitative approach. Findings indicate an acceptable level of access to the Internet and vast use of web search engines by the girl students in Tehran. However, students' knowledge of the concept and how search engines work and also about the methods and tools of retrieving information from electronic sources other than the search engines is poor. The study also shows that, compared to the Internet, the role of libraries and librarians are gradually diminishing in fulfilling the students' information needs. Authors recommend that school librarians can provide different instructional and information literacy programs to help students improve their information seeking behavior and their knowledge of the Internet.

Source

Information und Wissen: global, sozial und frei? Proceedings des 12. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2011) ; Hildesheim, 9. - 11. März 2011. Hrsg.: J. Griesbaum, T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker

0.00424829 = product of:
  0.01699316 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=2587,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the ever-increasing developments in information technology and networks, end users of the online environment now have integrated access to a variety of bibliographic databases, mainly library catalogues and A&I services, from a single terminal. While such a facility influences users' expectations and preferences in the searching, retrieval and presentation of bibliographic information, it raises an important question as to whether different bibliographic practices can use a similar or compatible set of principles for creating bibliographic records and files. This paper is an attempt to identify areas of possible reconciliation and also address some of the implications of such an issue.

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an evaluation of the existing state of practice in knowledge sharing in university libraries. Design/methodology/approach - This is survey research which is based on an electronic questionnaire. Findings - Results reveal that the majority of libraries investigated are quite friendly towards knowledge sharing, and the majority of librarians value the importance of knowledge sharing. Results also confirm that the knowledge that they mostly use is mainly intangible knowledge. Originality/value - If knowledge-sharing requirements of librarians while collaboratively performing reference and information services can be acknowledged, guidelines for enhancing conceptual collaborative process would be suggested.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.4, S.1503-1516