Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Galeffi, A."
  1. Galeffi, A.; Sardo, A.L.: Cataloguing, a necessary evil : critical aspects of RDA (2016) 0.00 
    0.0026742492 = product of:
  0.0053484985 = sum of:
    0.0053484985 = product of:
      0.010696997 = sum of:
        0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010696997 = score(doc=2952,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Toolkit designed by the RDA Steering Committee makes Resource Description and Access available on the web, together with other useful documents (workflows, mappings, etc.). Reading, learning and memorizing are interconnected, and a working tool should make these activities faster and easier to perform. Some issues arise while verifying the real easiness of use and learning of the tool. The practical and formal requirements for a cataloguing code include plain language, ease of memorisation, clarity of instructions, familiarity for users, predictability and reproducibility of solutions, and general usability. From a formal point of view, the RDA text does not appear to be conceived for an uninterrupted reading, but just for reading of few paragraphs for temporary catalographic needs. From a content point of view, having a syndetic view of the description of a resource is rather difficult: catalographic details are scattered and their re-organization is not easy. The visualisation and logical organisation in the Toolkit could be improved: the table of contents occupies a sizable portion of the screen and resizing or hiding it is not easy; the indentation leaves little space to the words; inhomogeneous font styles (italic and bold) and poor contrast between background and text colours make reading not easy; simultaneous visualization of two or more parts of the text is not allowed; and Toolkit's icons are less intuitive than expected. In the conclusion, some suggestions on how to improve the Toolkit's aspects and usability are provided.
    Type
    a
  2. Galeffi, A.: ¬The spatial value of information (2013) 0.00 
    0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=791,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 791, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=791)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Conceptual models created by archival, library, and museum communities significantly influence the way in which data are displayed and aggregated. What 's the reason behind this great attraction to conceptual models? Perhaps part of the explanation can be found in the growing importance of the visual representa tion of information. Concepts seem to be far more readily comprehended when represented in space in a visual way, a way that brings them closer to being images or maps. Like a geographical map, conceptual models disclose specific points, meaning entities, and identify relationships between these, thereby creating connections. If archives, libraries, and museums generate different "landscapes," how will the people who consult these at times discordant maps react? Which conceptual horizons should we offer our users? And will they be compatible with those they expect? Do we not perhaps risk increasing the chasm between information professionals and users?
    Type
    a

Languages

Types