Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0148187205 = product of:
  0.059274882 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Highlights problems associated with the preservation of digital information. Reports on the draft report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information, commissioned by the Commission on Preservation and Access and the Research Libraries Group. The report sets out the key organization, technological, legal, and economic problems associated with digital preservation. Defines the critical issues that inhibit resolution of each identified problem, and makes recommendations for further action

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 22(1996) no.6, S.451-454

0.0132063795 = product of:
  0.105651036 = sum of:
    0.105651036 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105651036 = score(doc=1910,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.8115823 = fieldWeight in 1910, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1910)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Research libraries have been distinguished by their collections. Digital technology has dramatically changed the way in which research libraries function. Explores the changes that are apparent in digital libraries and asks how the best features of research libraries can be maintained in a digital environment

0.01296638 = product of:
  0.05186552 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=36,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The changing information environment and the changing expectations and demands of library users are forcing libraries to reassess their role in the digital age. Amidst this change there is a fundamental constant--the need for access to high-quality research materials. Success in the new environment will require learning much more than we now know about the use of digital resources, their preservation, and the training needed for operating the library of the future. This article examines three essential questions and suggests areas for research in each: 1. How are digital resource users best served: What resources will they want? How will they want to use them? And, what services will most enhance use? 2. What elements are required for a coherent preservation strategy covering resources both digital and traditional? 3. What kinds of education will "librarians" of the future need?

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos