Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013875612 = product of:
  0.04856464 = sum of:
    0.014675758 = weight(_text_:management in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014675758 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.10533164 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.03388888 = weight(_text_:europe in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03388888 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25178367 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.13459523 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Chapter 8 discusses issues of archiving and preserving digital materials. The chapter reiterates, "What is the point of all of this if the resources identified and catalogued are not preserved?" (Gorman, 2003, p. 16). Discussion about preservation and related issues is organized in five sections that successively ask why, what, who, how, and how much of the plethora of digital materials should be archived and preserved. These are not easy questions because of media instability and technological obsolescence. Stakeholders in communities with diverse interests compete in terms of which community or representative of a community has an authoritative say in what and how much get archived and preserved. In discussing the above-mentioned questions, the authors once again provide valuable information and lessons from a number of initiatives in Europe, Australia, and from other global initiatives. The Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage and the Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage, both published by UNESCO, are discussed and some of the preservation principles from the Guidelines are listed. The existing diversity in administrative arrangements for these new projects and resources notwithstanding, the impact on content produced for online reserves through work done in digital projects and from the use of metadata and the impact on levels of reference services and the ensuing need for different models to train users and staff is undeniable. In terms of education and training, formal coursework, continuing education, and informal and on-the-job training are just some of the available options. The intensity in resources required for cataloguing digital materials, the questions over the quality of digital resources, and the threat of the new digital environment to the survival of the traditional library are all issues quoted by critics and others, however, who are concerned about a balance for planning and resources allocated for traditional or print-based resources and newer digital resources. A number of questions are asked as part of the book's conclusions in Chapter 10. Of these questions, one that touches on all of the rest and upon much of the book's content is the question: What does the future hold for metadata in libraries? Metadata standards are alive and well in many communities of practice, as Chapters 2-6 have demonstrated. The usefulness of metadata continues to be high and innovation in various elements should keep information professionals engaged for decades to come. There is no doubt that metadata have had a tremendous impact in how we organize information for access and in terms of who, how, when, and where contact is made with library services and collections online. Planning and commitment to a diversity of metadata to serve the plethora of needs in communities of practice are paramount for the continued success of many digital projects and for online preservation of our digital heritage."

LCSH

Electronic information resources / Management

Subject

Electronic information resources / Management

0.011033435 = product of:
  0.077234045 = sum of:
    0.077234045 = sum of:
      0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043630954 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.033603087 = weight(_text_:22 in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033603087 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The primary objective of the present study was to exmine whether readers conducting bibliographic searches in ALEPH - Israel's research library network - tend to search only within the OPAC of the library within which they are working or whether they access the remote OPACs of other libraries. The ALEPH network has a dezentralized database. Therefore, it was possible to examine this question because each library has its own access code and each database can be searched separately. The data were collected by means of a one-page questionnaire lefr beside each terminal in the library of the Graduate School of Library and Archive Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during an entire academic years. results of analysis of the data collected in this survey are presented in 6 tables

Date

22. 2.1999 13:06:18

0.008827448 = product of:
  0.061792135 = sum of:
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=390)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0028002574 = product of:
  0.019601801 = sum of:
    0.019601801 = product of:
      0.039203603 = sum of:
        0.039203603 = weight(_text_:22 in 3100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039203603 = score(doc=3100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 2.1999 13:00:54