Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Su, S.-F."
  1. Su, S.-F.: Dialogue with an OPAC : how visionary was Swanson in 1964? (1994) 0.00
    0.0024857575 = product of:
      0.004971515 = sum of:
        0.004971515 = product of:
          0.00994303 = sum of:
            0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 7674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00994303 = score(doc=7674,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 7674, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7674)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In 1964 Swanson published an article 'Dialogues with a catalog', in which he presented a personal prescription for what a library catalog should look like at some future date. He was in many ways remarkably visionary; some of the features he recommended have still not been implemented, although writers are again referring to their desirability. Despite its visionary qualities, Swanson's article seems to have been quite forgotten. At least, it is rarely cited. This article will trace the development of OPACs from the time they were first introduced into libraries and compare what has occured with Swanson's recommendations. It is remarkable that an article written thirty years ago could still offer a suitable framework within which to review virtually the totality of OPAC developments. The lesson that emerges most clearly from this is that the library profession should prescribe performance goals for tools and services that are not constrained by existing technologies. We must first establish requirements and seek the solutions later
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Swanson, D.R.: Dialogues with a catalog. In: Library quarterly 34(1964) S.113-125
    Type
    a
  2. Su, S.-F.; Lancaster, F.W.: Evaluation of expert systems in reference service applications (1995) 0.00
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = product of:
          0.006765375 = sum of:
            0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006765375 = score(doc=4014,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4014, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4014)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Reports results of an evaluation of 2 expert systems designed for use in library reference services: ReferenceExpert (RE), developed by Houston University; and SourceFinder (SF), developed by Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign. The test group consisted of 60 graduate students at the initial stage of an intermediate level reference course. The evaluation involved test questions already used in an earlier study (College and research libraries 52(1991) no.5, S.454-465). Results indicated that: there was no significant difference between RE and SF students in the confidence they expressed regarding understanding of their test questions; no significant correlation was found between confidence in understanding the question and success in selecting appropriate sources; only 1/5 of the students agreed that the system they used could be considered 'intelligent'; the majority did not consider the system they used to be 'competent'; almost half agreed that the subject categories provided by the menus were too broad; a little more than half wer not satisfied with the information sources selected by their system; significantly more RE users than SF users agreed that they found the menu interface useful; and a keyword search capability was the feature most often mentioned as a needed system enhancement. Overall results indicated that current expert systems for the selection of reference sources cannot perform as well as experienced subject oriented reference librarians
    Type
    a