Search (51 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0019255801 = product of:
  0.0192558 = sum of:
    0.0192558 = weight(_text_:web in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0192558 = score(doc=5560,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogues can be viewed as the latest manifestation of a tendency in library catalogue history to strive for centralization of access to collections-a single portal for the discovery of library resources. Due to an increasing volume of published materials and the explosion of online information resources during the Internet age, the library does not currently provide centralized access to its various information silos, nor does it provide a user-friendly search and retrieval experience for users whose expectations are shaped by Google and other major commercial Web sites. Searching across library resources is a complicated task, bearing high-attention "transaction costs" for the user, which discourage the use of library resources. Libraries need access systems that minimize complexity, easing discovery and delivery of resources for user populations. Here, the authors review past efforts of centralization of access, consider the potential of next-generation catalogues in the context of this historical tendency toward centralization of access, and describe what goals underlie that centralization.

0.0019255801 = product of:
  0.0192558 = sum of:
    0.0192558 = weight(_text_:web in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0192558 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

To improve resource discovery and retrieval, libraries have implemented new discovery services, such as next generation catalogues, federated search, and Web-scale discovery, in addition to their traditional integrated library systems. These new discovery services greatly improve the user experience by utilizing existing cataloguing records housed within the library system or in combination with metadata from other sources, both in and outside of libraries. However, to maximize the functionality of these discovery services, libraries must reexamine current cataloguing practices and the way libraries control the bibliographic description to better serve the user's needs. This report discusses how new discovery services use the cataloguing records and the challenges that libraries encounter in bibliographic control to work with new discovery services, including the quality of cataloguing records, granular levels of bibliographic description, and integration of user-generated metadata into the cataloguing records. Each of these aspects requires further discussion.

0.0016676014 = product of:
  0.016676014 = sum of:
    0.016676014 = weight(_text_:web in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016676014 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.

0.00160465 = product of:
  0.0160465 = sum of:
    0.0160465 = weight(_text_:web in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0160465 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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."

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.

0.00160465 = product of:
  0.0160465 = sum of:
    0.0160465 = weight(_text_:web in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0160465 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.

0.001478054 = product of:
  0.01478054 = sum of:
    0.01478054 = product of:
      0.04434162 = sum of:
        0.04434162 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04434162 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, 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=290)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.001478054 = product of:
  0.01478054 = sum of:
    0.01478054 = product of:
      0.04434162 = sum of:
        0.04434162 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04434162 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.0013615907 = product of:
  0.013615907 = sum of:
    0.013615907 = weight(_text_:web in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013615907 = score(doc=4530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.15297705 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Footnote

Rez. in Mitt VÖB 64(2011) H.1, S.151-153 (S. Breitling): "Wie sieht die Rolle der Katalogisierung im 21. Jahrhundert aus? In diversen Blogs und Mailinglisten wird darüber seit geraumer Zeit diskutiert. Der Bereich Katalogisierung befindet sich in einer Phase tiefgreifenden Wandels, ausgelöst durch eine Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen veränderte Nutzererwartungen bei der Recherche und die wachsende Menge an neuen zu katalogisierenden Materialien (e-Books, Web-Ressourcen etc.) und Formaten nur zwei Aspekte darstellen. Das technische Umfeld wird nicht zuletzt durch fortgeschrittene Möglichkeiten im Bereich Retrieval und Präsentation geprägt. Wie schafft man es, dass Katalogisierung als Teil des gesamten Bibliothekswesens relevant und zeitgemäß bleibt? Welche der in Jahrzehnten Katalogisierungspraxis erarbeiteten Standards sind erhaltenswert, und welche sind im Hinblick auf den Fortschritt der IT und ein mögliches Semantic Web vielleicht gar nicht mehr nötig oder müssen an die Gegebenheiten angepasst werden? Mit diesen und anderen Fragen beschäftigt sich die Aufsatzsammlung "Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century". In der Community bekannte Personen wie Martha Yee, Christine Schwartz oder James Weinheimer kommen zu Wort, aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum Bernhard Eversberg, Entwickler des Bibliothekssystems Allegro.

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.

0.00128372 = product of:
  0.0128372 = sum of:
    0.0128372 = weight(_text_:web in 425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128372 = score(doc=425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 425, 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=425)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Content

Der OCLC WorldCat enthält zurzeit knapp 82 Millionen Titeleinträge in 470 Sprachen, die etwa 1,3 Milliarden Medieneinheiten aus mehr als 10 000 in der Welt verteilten Bibliotheken repräsentieren. Informationssuchende finden im WorldCat die benötigten Werke mit einem Nachweis der Bestände in den teilnehmenden Bibliotheken. Bestände sichtbar machen Für die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ist die Teilnahme am OCLC WorldCat ein weiterer Schritt auf dem eingeschlagenen Weg, die eigenen Bestände möglichst umfassend sichtbar zu machen und den eigenen Katalog mit anderen Verzeichnissen zu vernetzen. So ist der Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek in das Portal The European Library eingebunden, er ist mit den Personeneinträgen der Wikipedia Enzyklopädie verknüpft und er bietet eine Lieferbarkeitsabfrage im Shopsystem des Deutschen Buchhandels direkt aus der Titelanzeige heraus. Zur Erläuterung: Das Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) ist eine weltweit tätige Non-Profit-Organisation mit Sitz in Dublin, Ohio. Es fungiert als Dienstleister für Bibliotheken aller Art und bietet unter anderem den frei zugänglichen WorldCat im Internet an. WorldCat ist wegweisend in der Inhaltserschließung: So gibt es erste Web 2.0 Ansätze, in denen Nutzer die Titeleinträge selbstständig verschlagworten können, beziehungsweise die Titel mit Rezensionen, Abstracts oder Kurzbiografien anreichern können."

0.00128372 = product of:
  0.0128372 = sum of:
    0.0128372 = weight(_text_:web in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128372 = score(doc=1973,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08900621 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02727315 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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

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

0.0012317117 = product of:
  0.012317117 = sum of:
    0.012317117 = product of:
      0.036951352 = sum of:
        0.036951352 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036951352 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0010451422 = product of:
  0.010451421 = sum of:
    0.010451421 = product of:
      0.031354263 = sum of:
        0.031354263 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031354263 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

9.853694E-4 = product of:
  0.009853695 = sum of:
    0.009853695 = product of:
      0.029561082 = sum of:
        0.029561082 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029561082 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

9.853694E-4 = product of:
  0.009853695 = sum of:
    0.009853695 = product of:
      0.029561082 = sum of:
        0.029561082 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029561082 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

9.853694E-4 = product of:
  0.009853695 = sum of:
    0.009853695 = product of:
      0.029561082 = sum of:
        0.029561082 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029561082 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

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 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025865946 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.

8.6219824E-4 = product of:
  0.008621982 = sum of:
    0.008621982 = product of:
      0.025865946 = sum of:
        0.025865946 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025865946 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09550592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02727315 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22