Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009410666 = product of:
  0.04391644 = sum of:
    0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011280581 = score(doc=3611,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=3611,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to discuss some long-standing issues of the development of a subject heading language as pre- or postcoordinated. Design/methodology/approach - In a review of literature on pre- and postcoordination and user behaviour, 20 criteria originally discussed by Svenonius are considered. Findings - The advantages and disadvantages of pre- and postcoordinated systems are on a very similar level. Most subject heading languages developed recently are precoordinated. They all require investments in highly skilled intellectual work, and are therefore expensive and difficult to maintain. Postcoordinated systems seem to have more advantages for information providers, but less for users. However, most of these disadvantages could be overcome by known information retrieval models and techniques. Research limitations/implications - The criteria originally discussed by Svenonius are difficult to evaluate in an exact manner. Some of them are also irrelevant because of changes in information retrieval systems. Practical implications - It was found that the decision on whether to use a pre- or postcoordinated system cannot be taken independent of consideration of the subject authority file and the functions of an information retrieval system, which should support users on one hand and information providers and indexers on the other. Originality/value - This literature review brings together some findings that have not been considered together previously.

Date

20. 6.2010 14:22:43

0.003739008 = product of:
  0.026173055 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=2843,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.

0.0034870307 = product of:
  0.048818428 = sum of:
    0.048818428 = weight(_text_:web in 6951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048818428 = score(doc=6951,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 6951, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6951)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0010059725 = product of:
  0.0070418073 = sum of:
    0.0030268978 = weight(_text_:information in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030268978 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.0040149093 = product of:
      0.012044728 = sum of:
        0.012044728 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012044728 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

8.153676E-4 = product of:
  0.011415146 = sum of:
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Describes the status of library and information science education in Slovenia with emphasis on cataloging and classification courses. The program in the Department of Library and Information Science and Book Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana is reported in detail at both the undergraduate and master's level. Also addressed are requirements to be employed as a librarian in Slovenia and continuing educations opportunities for catalogers.

6.241359E-4 = product of:
  0.008737902 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=2069,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.55-63

6.241359E-4 = product of:
  0.008737902 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=405,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Several systems for the classification of fiction have been proposed to date, but experience shows that such classification partially depends on the culture and literary education in specific countries. Slovenian public libraries have traditionally used UDC as the only subject information on belles-lettres. Research has shown that users would prefer richer subject information. Therefore an attempt was made to enhance UDC by adding subject information, that should be helpful to users and librarians. The newly proposed Alternative Model system contains lists of verbal and alpha-numerical denotations for the basic groups of belles-lettres book material (main-genres: lyrics, drama, epics) and all other categorical criteria (language of the original literary work, literature to which the work belongs, genre, sub-genre) and half-categorical (accessibility of the content of literary works, origin within the periods of literary history, the century in which the literary work was written, the rhythm of the language). All these lists are available, but not included in this paper. The idea of the Alternative Model system is to show the possibilities of making the classification of belles-lettres in libraries more helpful, efficient and exact.

6.241359E-4 = product of:
  0.008737902 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=1961,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The international standard ISO 214:1976 defines an abstract as "an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document" (p. 1) that should "enable readers to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately to determine relevance" (p. 1). It also should be useful in computerized searching. The ISO standard suggests including the following elements: purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Researchers have often challenged this structure and found that different disciplines and cultures prefer different information content. These claims are partially supported by the findings of our research into the structure of pharmacology, sociology, and Slovenian language and literature abstracts of papers published in international and Slovenian scientific periodicals. The three disciplines have different information content. Slovenian pharmacology abstracts differ in content from those in international periodicals while the differences between international and Slovenian abstracts are small in sociology. In the field of Slovenian language and literature, only domestic abstracts were studied. The identified differences can in part be attributed to the disciplines, but also to the different role of journals and papers in the professional society and to differences in perception of the role of abstracts. The findings raise questions about the structure of abstracts required by some publishers of international journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1420-1432