Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0071056187 = product of:
  0.035528094 = sum of:
    0.0256744 = weight(_text_:web in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0256744 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    0.009853695 = product of:
      0.029561082 = sum of:
        0.029561082 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029561082 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Over the past year, innumerable discussions on the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the newly burgeoning World WideWeb have occured in many libraries and in virtually every library related discussion list. Rumors and speculation abound, some insisting that SGML will replace USMARC "soon," others maintaining that OPACs that haven't migrated to the Web will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.0022465102 = product of:
  0.022465102 = sum of:
    0.022465102 = weight(_text_:web in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022465102 = score(doc=4179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

This paper surveys card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) - online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards and more or less sophisticated mechanisms for browsing or searching. Solutions of this kind have been implemented by a number of libraries in various countries since the mid-1990s, mainly as inexpensive altematives to a full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. The article presents a Web page dedicated to CIPACs, identifies and describes four main categories of interface software for such catalogues, and provides a comparative overview of 50 CIPACs in 11 countries, looking at aspects such as geographical distribution, growth and size, software, number of catalogues, processing and index creation, navigation, image formats, and other features.

0.0022465102 = product of:
  0.022465102 = sum of:
    0.022465102 = weight(_text_:web in 397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022465102 = score(doc=397,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 397, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=397)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Der Wikipedia-Experte Jakob Voß plädiert dafür, Opacs mit Inhalten aus Wikis, Weblogs und Bookmarking-Diensten anzureichern Auf dem Leipziger Bibliothekskongress hat Jakob Voß einen Vortrag zum Thema »Soziale Software - Hype oder Verheißung?« gehalten - und damit eine der bestbesuchten Veranstaltungen eingeleitet. Der 28-Jährige hat Informatik, Bibliothekswissenschaft und Philosophie in Chemnitz und Berlin studiert und arbeitet als Entwickler beim Gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbund GBV in Göttingen. Seit 2002 gehörter zum Vorstand von Wikimedia Deutschland, einem »Verein zur Förderung des freien Wissens«, dessen prominentestes Förderprojekt die Web-Enzyklopädie Wikipedia ist. BuB-Redakteurin Julia Hellmich hat Jakob Voß in Leipzig interviewt.

0.0022465102 = product of:
  0.022465102 = sum of:
    0.022465102 = weight(_text_:web in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022465102 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.0022465102 = product of:
  0.022465102 = sum of:
    0.022465102 = weight(_text_:web in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022465102 = score(doc=5568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

As of spring semester 2010, Georgia Southern University began using a VuFind implementation as the default access to the library catalogue on the library Web page while maintaining a secondary link to the traditional Voyager "classic" catalogue. VuFind is an open-source product that has been adopted and adapted by all the state universities and colleges in the state of Georgia. For approximately ten years, Georgia libraries have used Voyager as their catalogue, and it remains available to users as the "classic" search option. This report examines the local VuFind implementation compared to the more traditional Voyager implementation, emphasizing the differences in the searching capabilities of each.

0.00160465 = product of:
  0.0160465 = sum of:
    0.0160465 = weight(_text_:web in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0160465 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.

0.00128372 = product of:
  0.0128372 = sum of:
    0.0128372 = weight(_text_:web in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128372 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

8.6219824E-4 = product of:
  0.008621982 = sum of:
    0.008621982 = product of:
      0.025865946 = sum of:
        0.025865946 = weight(_text_:22 in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025865946 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3656, 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=3656)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

8.6219824E-4 = product of:
  0.008621982 = sum of:
    0.008621982 = product of:
      0.025865946 = sum of:
        0.025865946 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025865946 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170