Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Sauperl, A.; Saye, J.D.: Have we made any progress? : catalogues of the future revisited (2009) 0.09 
    0.08612041 = product of:
  0.114827216 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = 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)
    0.046659768 = weight(_text_:search in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046659768 = score(doc=2843,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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.
  2. Kemp, R.: Catalog/cataloging changes and Web 2.0 functionality : new directions for serials (2008) 0.06 
    0.05836313 = product of:
  0.11672626 = sum of:
    0.07053544 = weight(_text_:web in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07053544 = score(doc=2254,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
    0.046190813 = weight(_text_:search in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046190813 = score(doc=2254,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article presents an overview of some of the important recent developments in cataloging theory and practice and online catalog design. Changes in cataloging theory and practice include the incorporation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records principles into catalogs, the new Resource Description and Access cataloging manual, and the new CONSER Standard Record. Web 2.0 functionalities and advances in search technology and results displays are influencing online catalog design. The paper ends with hypothetical scenarios in which a catalog, enhanced by the developments described, fulfills the tasks of finding serials articles and titles.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  3. McCathieNevile, C.; Méndez Rodríguez, E.M.: Library cards for the 21st century (2006) 0.05 
    0.05470205 = product of:
  0.1094041 = sum of:
    0.06981198 = weight(_text_:web in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06981198 = score(doc=240,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
    0.03959212 = weight(_text_:search in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03959212 = score(doc=240,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper presents several reflections on the traditional card catalogues and RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is "the" standard for creating the Semantic Web. This work grew out of discussion between the authors after Working Group on Metadata Schemes meeting held at IFLA conference in Buenos Aires (2004). The paper provides an overview of RDF from the perspective of cataloguers, catalogues and library cards. The central theme is the discussion of resource description as a discipline that could be based on RDF. RDF is explained as a very simple grammar, using metadata and ontologies to semantic search and access. RDF Knitting the Semantic Web Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Volume 43, Numbers 3/4 has the ability to enhance 21st century libraries and metadata interoperability in digital libraries, while maintaining the expressive power that was available to librarians when catalogues were physical artefacts.
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as Knitting the Semantic Web
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  4. Libraries and Google (2005) 0.05 
    0.053421855 = product of:
  0.07122914 = sum of:
    0.023270661 = weight(_text_:web in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023270661 = score(doc=1973,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.032326832 = weight(_text_:search in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032326832 = score(doc=1973,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18812653 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.015631648 = product of:
      0.031263296 = sum of:
        0.031263296 = weight(_text_:engine in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031263296 = score(doc=1973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.11820832 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Google[trademark] has become a nearly omnipresent tool of the Internet, with its potential only now beginning to be realised. How can librarians effectively integrate this powerful search engine to provide service to their patrons? "Libraries and Google[trademark]" presents leading authorities discussing the many possibilities of using Google products as effective, user-friendly tools in libraries. Google Scholar and Print are extensively explored with an eye towards offering an expanded view of what is and may be possible for the future, with practical insights on how to make the most of the product's capabilities.
    Content
    Introduction: Libraries and Their Interrelationships with Google - William Miller Disruptive Beneficence: The Google Print Program and the Future of Libraries - Mark Sandler The Google Library Project at Oxford - Ronald Milne The (Uncertain) Future of Libraries in a Google World: Sounding an Alarm - Rick Anderson A Gaggle of Googles: Limitations and Defects of Electronic Access as Panacea - -Mark Y. Herring Using the Google Search Appliance for Federated Searching: A Case Study - Mary Taylor Google's Print and Scholar Initiatives: The Value of and Impact on Libraries and Information Services - Robert J. Lackie Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the Performance of Schoogle - Burton Callicott; Debbie Vaughn Google, the Invisible Web, and Librarians: Slaying the Research Goliath - Francine Egger-Sider; Jane Devine Choices in the Paradigm Shift: Where Next for Libraries? - Shelley E. Phipps; Krisellen Maloney Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library - Maurice C. York Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use - Janice Adlington; Chris Benda Running with the Devil: Accessing Library-Licensed Full Text Holdings Through Google Scholar - Rebecca Donlan; Rachel Cooke Directing Students to New Information Types: A New Role for Google in Literature Searches? - Mike Thelwall Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy Rachael Cathcart - Amanda Roberts Optimising Publications for Google Users - Alan Dawson Google and Privacy - Paul S. Piper Image: Google's Most Important Product - Ron Force Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack - Michael J. Krasulski; Steven J. Bell
    Footnote
    Co-published simultaneously as Internet reference services quarterly, vol. 10(1005), nos. 3/4 Rez. in: ZfBB 54(2007) H.2, S.98-99 (D. Lewandowski): "Google und Bibliotheken? Meist hat man leider den Eindruck, dass hier eher ein oder gedacht wird. Dies sehen auch die Herausgeber des vorliegenden Bandes und nehmen deshalb neben Beiträgen zur Diskussion um die Rolle der Bibliotheken im Zeitalter von Google auch solche auf, die Tipps zur Verwendung unterschiedlicher Google-Dienste geben. Die allgemeine Diskussion um Google und die Bibliotheken dreht sich vor allem um die Rolle, die Bibliotheken (mit ihren Informationsportalen) noch spielen können, wenn ihre Nutzer sowieso bei Google suchen, auch wenn die Bibliotheksangebote (zumindest von den Bibliothekaren) als überlegen empfunden werden. Auch wenn die Nutzer geschult werden, greifen sie doch meist lieber zur einfachen Recherchemöglichkeit bei Google oder anderen Suchmaschinen - vielleicht lässt sich die Situation am besten mit dem Satz eines im Buch zitierten Bibliothekars ausdrücken: »Everyone starts with Google except librarians.« (5.95) Sollen die Bibliotheken nun Google die einfache Recherche ganz überlassen und sich auf die komplexeren Suchfragen konzentrieren? Oder verlieren sie dadurch eine Nutzerschaft, die sich mittlerweile gar nicht mehr vorstellen kann, dass man mit anderen Werkzeugen als Suchmaschinen bessere Ergebnisse erzielen kann? Diese sicherlich für die Zukunft der Bibliotheken maßgebliche Frage wird in mehreren Beiträgen diskutiert, wobei auffällt, dass die jeweiligen Autoren keine klare Antwort bieten können, wie Bibliotheken ihre Quellen so präsentieren können, dass die Nutzer mit der Recherche so zufrieden sind, dass sie freiwillig in den Bibliotheksangeboten anstatt in Google recherchieren. Den Schwerpunkt des Buchs machen aber nicht diese eher theoretischen Aufsätze aus, sondern solche, die sich mit konkreten Google-Diensten beschäftigen. Aufgrund ihrer Nähe zu den Bibliotheksangeboten bzw. den Aufgaben der Bibliotheken sind dies vor allem Google Print und Google Scholar, aber auch die Google Search Appliance. Bei letzterer handelt es sich um eine integrierte Hard- und Softwarelösung, die die Indexierung von Inhalten aus unterschiedlichen Datenquellen ermöglicht. Der Aufsatz von Mary Taylor beschreibt die Vor- und Nachteile des Systems anhand der praktischen Anwendung in der University of Nevada.
    Ebenfalls direkt aus der Praxis erhält der Leser Informationen zum Google-PrintProgramm. Robert Milne beschreibt die Zusammenarbeit von Google und der Universität Oxford. In diesem Aufsatz wird - was dem Autor natürlich nicht anzulasten ist - ein Problem des vorliegenden Werks deutlich: Viele Informationen sind doch von sehr beschränkter Haltbarkeit. Der Redaktionsschluss war im Frühsommer 2005, sodass sich in vielen Bereichen bereits neue Entwicklungen ergeben haben. Dies ist beim Print-Programm der Fall, vor allem wird es aber bei dem Hauptthema des Bandes, nämlich Google Scholar, deutlich. Dieser Dienst wurde im November 2004 gestartet und stieß auf unterschiedlichste Reaktionen, die (anhand von Beispielen amerikanischer Bibliotheken) im Beitrag von Maurice C. York beschrieben werden. Einige Bibliotheken nahmen den Dienst begeistert auf und verlinkten diesen mit Lob versehen auf ihren Websites. Andere reagierten gegenteilig und warnten vor dessen schlechter Qualität. Auch weil vorauszusehen war, dass Google Scholar bei den Nutzern gut ankommen würde, darf das folgende Statement von einer Bibliothekswebsite geradezu als ignorant gelten: Google Scholar »is wonderful for those who do not have access to the library's databases« (S.119). Wie nun die Scholar-Nutzer auf die Bibliotheksangebote gelenkt werden können, beschreibt der ironisch »Running with the Devil« betitelte Aufsatz von Rebecca Donlan und Rachel Cooke. Die Autorinnen beschreiben den Einsatz von Link-Resolvern und gehen auf die in Google Scholar bestehenden Probleme durch unklare Bezeichnungen in den Trefferlisten ein. Einige Beispiele zeigen, dass Google Scholar auch in Kombination mit der Verlinkung auf die Bibliotheksbestände keine befriedigende Recherchesituation herstellt, sondern vielmehr weitere Anstrengungen nötig sind, um »das Beste beider Welten« zusammenzuführen. Zwei weitere Aufsätze beschäftigen sich mit der Frage, wie gut Google Scholar eigentlich ist. Einmal geht es darum, wie gut Scholar den »ACRL Information Literacy Standards« genügt. Der zweite Beitrag vergleicht Google Scholar anhand von fünf Suchaufgaben einerseits mit einem lokalen Bibliothekskatalog, andererseits mit EBSCOs Academic Search Premier und jeweils einer fachspezifischen Datenbank. Die Ergebnisse zeigen keine durchgehende Überlegenheit einer Suchlösung, vielmehr wird deutlich, dass es auf die Auswahl des richtigen Suchwerkzeugs für die bestehende Suchanfrage ankommt bzw. dass erst eine Kombination dieser Werkzeuge zu optimalen Ergebnissen führt. Man könnte also auch hier wieder sagen: Google und Bibliotheken, nicht Google oder Bibliotheken.
    Ein besonders interessanter Aufsatz widmet sich der Frage, wie Bibliotheken ihre Web-Angebote (hier: vor allem die Seiten zu digitalisierten Werken) so optimieren können, dass sie von Google und anderen Suchmaschinen optimal indexiert werden können. Dies wird leicht verständlich erklärt und dürfte für viele Bibliotheken, deren entsprechende Websites noch suboptimal gestaltet sind, eine gute Hilfestellung sein. Auch sehr praktisch orientiert ist der letzte Beitrag des Bandes, der verschiedene Quellen vorstellt, die sich mit aktuellen Entwicklungen bei Google (bzw. bei Suchmaschinen allgemein) beschäftigen, diese einzeln bewertet und Empfehlungen abgibt, welche man regelmäßig und welche man ab und zu lesen sollte. Die Bedeutung ist hier klar: Wenn Bibliotheken sich mit Google messen (oder darüber hinaus gehen?) möchten, müssen sie die Konkurrenz und ihre aktuellen Produkte kennen. Interessant wäre gewesen, noch den einen oder anderen Beitrag zu Suchprodukten von Bibliotheksseite zu lesen. Wie sollten solche Produkte beschaffen sein, um den Google-Nutzer zu den Bibliotheksangeboten zu führen? Welche Angebote gibt es hier bereits? Wie sehen die Anbieter von OPACs und Bibliothekssystemen die Zukunft der Bibliotheksrecherche? Und auch auf die nach Meinung des Rezensenten zurzeit wohl wichtigste Frage im Google-Kontext wird nicht eingegangen: Wie kann es den Bibliotheken gelingen, ein System (oder Systeme) zu schaffen, das nicht nur versucht, die Stärken der Suchmaschinen zu adaptieren, sondern ihnen einen Schritt voraus zu sein? Diese Kritik soll aber nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass es sich bei dem vorliegenden Werk um eine gut lesbare Zusammenstellung von Aufsätzen handelt, die allen empfohlen werden kann, die sich einen Überblick zur Thematik verschaffen wollen, die Diskussion in den internationalen Fachzeitschriften aber nicht sowieso minutiös verfolgen."
    LCSH
    Web search engines
    Subject
    Web search engines
  5. Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009) 0.05 
    0.0475376 = product of:
  0.0950752 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2939, 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=2939)
    0.06598687 = weight(_text_:search in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06598687 = score(doc=2939,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.
  6. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.05 
    0.047296606 = product of:
  0.06306214 = sum of:
    0.023270661 = weight(_text_:web in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023270661 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
    0.026394749 = weight(_text_:search in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026394749 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.013396727 = product of:
      0.026793454 = sum of:
        0.026793454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026793454 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.
    Content
    1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity
    Date
    17. 6.2015 14:40:22
  7. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.03 
    0.034817543 = product of:
  0.069635086 = sum of:
    0.046190813 = weight(_text_:search in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046190813 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.023444273 = product of:
      0.046888545 = sum of:
        0.046888545 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046888545 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  8. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.029843606 = product of:
  0.059687212 = sum of:
    0.03959212 = weight(_text_:search in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03959212 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.02009509 = product of:
      0.04019018 = sum of:
        0.04019018 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04019018 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.02 
    0.018333694 = product of:
  0.036667388 = sum of:
    0.023270661 = weight(_text_:web in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023270661 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
    0.013396727 = product of:
      0.026793454 = sum of:
        0.026793454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026793454 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  10. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 2: forms of name (2000) 0.02 
    0.016330918 = product of:
  0.06532367 = sum of:
    0.06532367 = weight(_text_:search in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06532367 = score(doc=5400,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Continues the results of the Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, this looking at forms of name and cross-references. Tests were conducted to examine results of searching for a personal name, Leonardo da Vinci, and a corporate entered subordinately, under parts of the name which were not the leading element. Many libraries provide no cross-references, and in many cases the presence absence of punctuation in the search string has a significant effect. The effect variation when combined in an Author/Title search is also considered. The also considers the special filing of names beginning Mc, which is almost confined to some British systems, and the interfiling of subject with author entries personal names. A number of recommendations conclude the article.
  11. Peterson, E.: Parallel systems : the coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy (2008) 0.01 
    0.014397987 = product of:
  0.05759195 = sum of:
    0.05759195 = weight(_text_:web in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05759195 = score(doc=251,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  12. Carlyle, A.; Summerlin, J.: Transforming catalog displays : record clustering for works of fiction (2002) 0.01 
    0.011547703 = product of:
  0.046190813 = sum of:
    0.046190813 = weight(_text_:search in 5626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046190813 = score(doc=5626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5626)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Displays grouping retrieved bibliographic record sets into categories or clusters may communicate search results more quickly and effectively to users than current catalog displays providing long alphabetical lists of records. Bibliographic records associated with three large fiction works are analyzed to discover the presence of relationship-type indicators. Preliminary results show that 94% of the records in this study contained indicators of cluster type that would allow them to be correctly identified automatically. However, the clusters formed by the relationship types used here are of unequal size. Because of this, it is suggested that alternative strategies be investigated for their potential to create more useful clustered displays.
  13. Gardner, S.A.: ¬The changing landscape of contemporary cataloging (2008) 0.01 
    0.011547703 = product of:
  0.046190813 = sum of:
    0.046190813 = weight(_text_:search in 795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046190813 = score(doc=795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=795)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Intended to contribute to the current dialogue about how the emerging information environment is impacting cataloging issues, this survey paper covers a broad range of topics, such as how search engines compare with integrated library systems, and includes some thoughts on how cataloging processes may evolve to continue to remain relevant. The author suggests that there is a need for significant changes in integrated library system interfaces and infrastructures as well as some changes in cataloging practice. The value of descriptive vs. non-descriptive elements in the catalog record and some pros and cons of the MARC format are covered.
  14. Oberhauser, O.: Card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) : an international survey (2003) 0.01 
    0.010180915 = product of:
  0.04072366 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=4179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  15. Voß, J.; Hellmich, J.: »Am Kerngeschäft der Bibliothekare kann sich plötzlich jeder beteiligen« (2007) 0.01 
    0.010180915 = product of:
  0.04072366 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=397,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  16. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.01 
    0.010047545 = product of:
  0.04019018 = sum of:
    0.04019018 = product of:
      0.08038036 = sum of:
        0.08038036 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08038036 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  17. Ivey, R.T.: Perceptions of the future of cataloging : is the sky really falling? (2009) 0.01 
    0.00989803 = product of:
  0.03959212 = sum of:
    0.03959212 = weight(_text_:search in 2992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03959212 = score(doc=2992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2992)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Cataloging procedures have evolved in many academic research libraries over the past 10 years. Some predicted trends--outsourcing, original cataloging by paraprofessionals, more digital material--have been borne out. Others, such as a decline in the amount of material to catalog or in the number of professional catalogers, have not. Changes have been mostly procedural and have not affected the catalog itself. Recently, however, the emergence of powerful Internet search engines has allowed researchers to bypass the catalog. This has led some to question the wisdom of continuing it and others to vigorously defended current practice. In 2005-2007 this debate became especially heated, but a consensus appears to be emerging that although the character of the professional cataloger's job will continue to evolve over the next 5 to 10 years there will not be a revolution. The cataloger's basic skills will still be needed and the fundamental nature of cataloging will remain much as we know it.
  18. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.01 
    0.008372955 = product of:
  0.03349182 = sum of:
    0.03349182 = product of:
      0.06698364 = sum of:
        0.06698364 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06698364 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  19. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.01 
    0.0075573693 = product of:
  0.030229477 = sum of:
    0.030229477 = weight(_text_:web in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030229477 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18735787 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
    The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
  20. hbz: ¬Das Suchraum-Konzept (2007) 0.01 
    0.0072720814 = product of:
  0.029088326 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 310, 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=310)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    "Wer wissenschaftliche Informationen und Fachliteratur sucht, kommt mit einer herkömmlichen Internet-Suchmaschine nicht weit. Auch Bibliothekskataloge und Datenbanken helfen nur begrenzt weiter, da es zu viele Anlaufstellen im Web gibt. Das Hochschulbibliothekszentrum NRW (hbz) arbeitet deshalb an der technischen Infrastrukturlösung eines gemeinsamen Suchraums. Der Suchraum fasst mithilfe modernster Suchmaschinentechnologie viele unterschiedliche Datenquellen zu einem optimierten Index zusammen, der von verschiedenen Suchanwendungen in Sekundenschnelle abgefragt werden kann. Zu den Datenbeständen des Suchraums gehören die Kataloge der deutschsprachigen Bibliotheken sowie Artikel aus den Wissenschaftszeitschriften. Hinzu kommen Abstracts, Inhaltsverzeichnisse und andere Informationen. Ergänzt wird dieser Suchindex durch einen Zugriff auf Fachdatenbanken, die zum Beispiel das vascodaProjekt zusammenträgt. Die Suchanwendungen wie beispielsweise die Portal-Lösung »DigiBib - Die Digitale Bibliothek« müssen nur noch den einheitlich aufgebauten Index durchsuchen und erhalten die Ergebnisse nach wenigen Millisekunden. In der Realität existiert eine solche virtuelle Metabibliothek nur in den Anfängen. Der Dreiländerkatalog des hbz und das Wissenschaftsportal vascoda sind ein großer Schritt auf dem Weg zu diesem gemeinsamen Suchraum. Er kann nur durch eine - inhaltlich und geografisch-weiträumige Kooperation der Universitäten, Bibliotheken, Verlage und anderer Anbieter von Fachinformationen der deutschsprachigen Länder aufgebaut werden. Die Grundlagen für dieses Ziel wurden bereits vom hbz gelegt. Die Teilnahme am Suchraum ist eine lohnende Aufgabe für die Bibliotheken und Wissenschaftsorganisationen: Am Ende steht eine wissenschaftliche Suchmaschine, die alle wichtigen und nützlichen Datenquellen erfasst."

Authors

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications