Search (79 results, page 1 of 4)

0.015968312 = product of:
  0.04790493 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=397,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 397, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=397)
    0.037084877 = weight(_text_:und in 397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037084877 = score(doc=397,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.38329202 = fieldWeight in 397, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=397)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.01318196 = product of:
  0.03954588 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=3690,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
    0.028725822 = weight(_text_:und in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028725822 = score(doc=3690,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

»Sacherschließung - können wir uns die noch leisten?« Angesichts des zunehmend geringeren Gesamtetats, der den Bibliotheken zur Verfügung steht, drängt sich diese Frage nahezu auf. Sacherschließung ist teuer und für das moderne Bibliothekswesen nur dann noch tragbar, wenn der Mitteleinsatz in einem angemessenen Verhältnis zum Ergebnis steht, das sich in der Leistungsfähigkeit des Produkts widerspiegelt. Im deutschsprachigen Raum trägt die SWD wesentlich zu einer effektiveren Sacherschließungsarbeit bei. Ihre Pflege und Weiterentwicklung ist jedoch mit einem enormen Aufwand gekoppelt, der nur mit einer entsprechenden Nutzung der Daten für das thematische Retrieval in den OPACs gerechtfertigt werden kann.

0.012155596 = product of:
  0.03646679 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 5037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=5037,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 5037, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5037)
    0.026489196 = weight(_text_:und in 5037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026489196 = score(doc=5037,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27378 = fieldWeight in 5037, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5037)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Für die Retrokonversion des nach allgemeiner Einschätzung wichtigsten Katalogbestandes in Bayern, der noch nicht online verfügbar ist - des Quartkatalogs der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek (BSB) -, sollte die Zeit des Systemwechsels vom noch großrechnerbasierten BVB-KAT auf ein neues Bibliothekssystem genutzt werden.

Content

"Angesichts des Alters (18401952), der Menge (2,3 Millionen Katalogblätter im Quartformat, daher der Name Quartkatalog) und der Schwierigkeit der Vorlagen (über neunzig Prozent handschriftlich) bot es sich für die BSB an, längere Zeit zu prüfen, welches Retrokonversionsverfahren für das geplante Vorhaben am besten geeignet ist unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Projektdauer, Kosten und unverzichtbarer hoher Qualität der bei der Retrokonversion erstellten Titeldaten. Sorgfältige Vorarbeiten hatten ein Verhältnis von 65 Prozent Zutragungen zu vorhandenen BVB Titeldatensätzen und 35 Prozent Neuaufnahmen prognostiziert. Als entscheidend für den Konversionserfolg wurde daher eine sehr hohe Genauigkeit bei der Entscheidung Neuaufnahme/ Zutragung angesehen, eine hohe Nachvollziehbarkeit der Rechercheentscheidungen sowie die Vermeidung von Dubletten in der Verbunddatenbank. Vor diesem Hintergrund fiel die Entscheidung zu einem Retrokonversionsverfahren unter Ausspeicherung der vorhandenen BVB-Daten, darunter die von der Deutschen Bücherei Leipzig und der Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz übernommenen Altdaten, mit besonderem Fokus auf die Qualitätssicherung durch den auszuwählenden Dienstleister. In einer europaweiten Ausschreibung wurde im Oktober 2002 der Anbieter Satz-Rechen-Zentrum (SRZ Berlin) ausgewählt, der in den Jahren 1996-1997 bereits die Retrokonversion des IFK der BSB (2,2 Millionen Karten im internationalen Format) erfolgreich bewältigt hatte. Von Dezember 2002 bis Juli 2003 wurden die Katalogschränke sukzessive nach Berlin transportiert, um an zwei für diesen Zweck speziell gebauten Durchzugsscannern 2,3 Millionen Quartblätter mit Vorder- und Rückseite in 256 Graustufen zu digitalisieren. Die insgesamt 4,6 Millionen Bilder (images) umfassen ein Datenvolumen von 221 GByte."

0.012000911 = product of:
  0.036002733 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=156,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Subject access in the OPAC, as discussed in this article, is predicated on two different kinds of searching: subject (authority, alphabetic, or controlled vocabulary searching) or keyword (uncontrolled, free text, natural language vocabulary). The literature has focused on demonstrating that both approaches are needed, but very few authors address the need to integrate keyword into authority searching. The article discusses this difference and compares, with a query on the term garbage, search results in two online catalogs, one that performs keyword searches through the authority file and one where only bibliographic records are included in keyword searches.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.011775948 = product of:
  0.035327844 = sum of:
    0.006310384 = weight(_text_:in in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006310384 = score(doc=2209,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
    0.029017461 = weight(_text_:und in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029017461 = score(doc=2209,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29991096 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In der globalen Online-Umgebung stellen viele bibliographische Dienstleistungen integrierten Zugang zu unterschiedlichen internetbasierten OPACs zur Verfügung. In solch einer Umgebung erwarten Benutzer mehr Übereinstimmungen innerhalb und zwischen den Systemen zu sehen. Zweck dieser Studie ist, die Indexierungskonsistenz zwischen Systemen zu untersuchen. Währenddessen werden einige Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen können, untersucht. Wichtigstes Ziel dieser Studie ist, die Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen herauszufinden, damit sinnvolle Vorschläge gemacht werden können, um die Indexierungskonsistenz zu verbessern. Eine Auswahl von 3307 Monographien wurde aus zwei chinesischen bibliographischen Katalogen gewählt. Nach Hooper's Formel war die durchschnittliche Indexierungskonsistenz für Indexterme 64,2% und für Klassennummern 61,6%. Nach Rolling's Formel war sie für Indexterme 70,7% und für Klassennummern 63,4%. Mehrere Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen, wurden untersucht: (1) Indexierungsbereite; (2) Indexierungsspezifizität; (3) Länge der Monographien; (4) Kategorie der Indexierungssprache; (5) Sachgebiet der Monographien; (6) Entwicklung von Disziplinen; (7) Struktur des Thesaurus oder der Klassifikation; (8) Erscheinungsjahr. Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen wurden ebenfalls analysiert. Die Analyse ergab: (1) den Indexieren mangelt es an Fachwissen, Vertrautheit mit den Indexierungssprachen und den Indexierungsregeln, so dass viele Inkonsistenzen verursacht wurden; (2) der Mangel an vereinheitlichten oder präzisen Regeln brachte ebenfalls Inkonsistenzen hervor; (3) verzögerte Überarbeitungen der Indexierungssprachen, Mangel an terminologischer Kontrolle, zu wenige Erläuterungen und "siehe auch" Referenzen, sowie die hohe semantische Freiheit bei der Auswahl von Deskriptoren oder Klassen, verursachten Inkonsistenzen.

Imprint

Berlin : Humboldt-Universität / Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

0.011769604 = product of:
  0.03530881 = sum of:
    0.0054100277 = weight(_text_:in in 1703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054100277 = score(doc=1703,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09110745 = fieldWeight in 1703, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1703)
    0.029898783 = weight(_text_:und in 1703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029898783 = score(doc=1703,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.3090199 = fieldWeight in 1703, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1703)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: ABI-Technik 21(2002) H.3, S.292 (E. Pietzsch): "Otto C. Oberhauser hat mit seiner Diplomarbeit eine beeindruckende Analyse digitalisierter Zettelkataloge (CIPACs) vorgelegt. Die Arbeit wartet mit einer Fülle von Daten und Statistiken auf, wie sie bislang nicht vorgelegen haben. BibliothekarInnen, die sich mit der Digitalisierung von Katalogen tragen, finden darin eine einzigartige Vorlage zur Entscheidungsfindung. Nach einem einführenden Kapitel bringt Oberhauser zunächst einen Überblick über eine Auswahl weltweit verfügbarer CIPACs, deren Indexierungsmethode (Binäre Suche, partielle Indexierung, Suche in OCR-Daten) und stellt vergleichende Betrachtungen über geographische Verteilung, Größe, Software, Navigation und andere Eigenschaften an. Anschließend beschreibt und analysiert er Implementierungsprobleme, beginnend bei Gründen, die zur Digitalisierung führen können: Kosten, Umsetzungsdauer, Zugriffsverbesserung, Stellplatzersparnis. Er fährt fort mit technischen Aspekten wie Scannen und Qualitätskontrolle, Image Standards, OCR, manueller Nacharbeit, Servertechnologie. Dabei geht er auch auf die eher hinderlichen Eigenschaften älterer Kataloge ein sowie auf die Präsentation im Web und die Anbindung an vorhandene Opacs. Einem wichtigen Aspekt, nämlich der Beurteilung durch die wichtigste Zielgruppe, die BibliotheksbenutzerInnen, hat Oberhauser eine eigene Feldforschung gewidmet, deren Ergebnisse er im letzten Kapitel eingehend analysiert. Anhänge über die Art der Datenerhebung und Einzelbeschreibung vieler Kataloge runden die Arbeit ab. Insgesamt kann ich die Arbeit nur als die eindrucksvollste Sammlung von Daten, Statistiken und Analysen zum Thema CIPACs bezeichnen, die mir bislang begegnet ist. Auf einen schön herausgearbeiteten Einzelaspekt, nämlich die weitgehende Zersplitterung bei den eingesetzten Softwaresystemen, will ich besonders eingehen: Derzeit können wir grob zwischen Komplettlösungen (eine beauftragte Firma führt als Generalunternehmung sämtliche Aufgaben von der Digitalisierung bis zur Ablieferung der fertigen Anwendung aus) und geteilten Lösungen (die Digitalisierung wird getrennt von der Indexierung und der Softwareerstellung vergeben bzw. im eigenen Hause vorgenommen) unterscheiden. Letztere setzen ein Projektmanagement im Hause voraus. Gerade die Softwareerstellung im eigenen Haus aber kann zu Lösungen führen, die kommerziellen Angeboten keineswegs nachstehen. Schade ist nur, daß die vielfältigen Eigenentwicklungen bislang noch nicht zu Initiativen geführt haben, die, ähnlich wie bei Public Domain Software, eine "optimale", kostengünstige und weithin akzeptierte Softwarelösung zum Ziel haben. Einige kritische Anmerkungen sollen dennoch nicht unerwähnt bleiben. Beispielsweise fehlt eine Differenzierung zwischen "Reiterkarten"-Systemen, d.h. solchen mit Indexierung jeder 20. oder 50. Karte, und Systemen mit vollständiger Indexierung sämtlicher Kartenköpfe, führt doch diese weitreichende Designentscheidung zu erheblichen Kostenverschiebungen zwischen Katalogerstellung und späterer Benutzung. Auch bei den statistischen Auswertungen der Feldforschung hätte ich mir eine feinere Differenzierung nach Typ des CIPAC oder nach Bibliothek gewünscht. So haben beispielsweise mehr als die Hälfte der befragten BenutzerInnen angegeben, die Bedienung des CIPAC sei zunächst schwer verständlich oder seine Benutzung sei zeitaufwendig gewesen. Offen beibt jedoch, ob es Unterschiede zwischen den verschiedenen Realisierungstypen gibt.
Nun haben Diplomarbeiten einen eigenen Charakter. Ihre Zielsetzung ist nicht unbedingt, Handlungsleitfäden zu geben. Manche FachkollegInnen, die schon selbst mit der Digitalisierung von Katalogen zu tun hatten, fragen sich aber, ob die jeweils gefundene Lösung denn tatsächlich die "beste" erreichbare war, ob es sich lohnt, über Verbesserungen nachzudenken, wie ihre Lösung im Vergleich zu anderen steht, ob die eingesetzte Recherchesoftware gute Ergebnisse liefert, ob die zunächst vielleicht niedrigen Erstellungskosten nicht doch relativ lange Verweildauern, d.h. verdeckte Kosten, bei der Recherche zur Folge haben. Oberhauser gibt dazu lediglich am Rande einige Hinweise. Wünschenswert wäre, wenn derartige Detailuntersuchungen in weiteren Arbeiten vorgenommen würden."

0.010506973 = product of:
  0.031520918 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=2207,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2207, 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=2207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Fac-Back-OPAC is a faceted back­ up OPAC. This advanced catalog offers features that compare favorably with the traditional catalogs for today's library systems. Fac-Back-OPAC represents the convergence of two prominent trends in library tools: the decoupling of discovery tools from the traditional integrated library system and the use of readily available open source components to rapidly produce leading-edge technology for meeting patron and library needs. Built on code that was originally developed by Casey Durfee in February 2007, Fac-Back-OPAC is available for no cost under an open source license to any library that wants to offer an advanced search interface or a backup catalog for its patrons.

Date

17. 8.2008 11:22:47

Source

Computers in libraries. 27(2007) no.9, S.6-

0.010506973 = product of:
  0.031520918 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=3599,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3599, 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=3599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Patron queries at a four-year comprehensive college's online public access catalog were examined via transaction logs from March 2007. Three representative days were isolated for a more detailed examination of search characteristics. The results show that library users employed an average of one to three terms in a search, did not use Boolean operators, and made use of limits one-tenth of the time. Failed queries remained problematic, as a full one-third of searches resulted in zero hits. Implications and recommendations for improvements in the online public access catalog are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.010286495 = product of:
  0.030859483 = sum of:
    0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013115887 = score(doc=1187,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1187, 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=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Subject access to monographs through online public access catalogs (OPACs) has always been a major concern for large research and/or academic libraries. Academic library practice of providing subject access to monographs has proven inadequate, especially in the case of composite works. Many techniques have been proposed to enhance subject treatment of monographs in OPACs. This article briefly reviews these efforts in the past and presents the case of adding Tables of Contents as one of the Most useful and probably also one of the Most costeffective ways of improving subject access to Monographs in an academic environment.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler

0.00990557 = product of:
  0.02971671 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=164,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, 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=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The growth and use of aggregator databases have presented libraries with both new opportunities for collection enhancement and new challenges of bibliographic control. How to integrate full-text electronic journal titles in unstable aggregator databases into a library's OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) has been an especially taxing matter for libraries. This article describes the Hong Kong Baptist University Library's effort to integrate full-text electronic journal titles from three large, unstable aggregator databases into its INNOPAC-based OPAC. The library's electronic journal computer program (EJCOP) does this in a simple, direct, consistent, and accurate manner and addresses some of the issues elaborated in the January 2000 Final Report of the Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases of the Standing Committee on Automation of the Library of Congress Program for Cooperative Cataloging.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.007504981 = product of:
  0.022514943 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=731,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Profiles in digital information"

0.0074825413 = product of:
  0.022447623 = sum of:
    0.01209719 = weight(_text_:in in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01209719 = score(doc=1429,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20372246 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
    0.010350432 = product of:
      0.020700864 = sum of:
        0.020700864 = weight(_text_:22 in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020700864 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Pauline Atherton Cochrane has been contributing to library and information science for fifty years. Think of it-from mid-century to the millennium, from ENIAC (practically) to Internet 11 (almost here). What a time to be in our field! Her work an indexing, subject access, and the user-oriented approach had immediate and sustained impact, and she continues to be one of our most heavily cited authors (see, JASIS, 49[4], 327-55) and most beloved personages. This introduction includes a few words about my own experiences with Pauline as well as a short summary of the contributions that make up this tribute. A review of the curriculum vita provided at the end of this publication Shows that Pauline Cochrane has been involved in a wide variety of work. As Marcia Bates points out in her note (See below), Pauline was (and is) a role model, but I will always think of her as simply the best teacher 1 ever had. In 1997, I entered the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science as a returning mid-life student; my previous doctorate had not led to a full-time job and I was re-tooling. I was not sure what 1 would find in library school, and the introductory course attended by more than 100 students from widely varied backgrounds had not yet convinced me I was in the right place. Then, one day, Pauline gave a guest lecture an the digital library in my introductory class. I still remember it. She put up some notes-a few words clustered an the blackboard with some circles and directional arrows-and then she gave a free, seemingly extemporaneous, but riveting narrative. She set out a vision for ideal information exchange in the digital environment but noted a host of practical concerns, issues, and potential problems that required (demanded!) continued human intervention. The lecture brought that class and the entire semester's work into focus; it created tremendous excitement for the future of librarianship. 1 saw that librarians and libraries would play an active role. I was in the right place.

Content

Enthält Beiträge von: FUGMANN, R.: Obstacles to progress in mechanized subject access and the necessity of a paradigm change; TELL, B.: On MARC and natural text searching: a review of Pauline Cochrane's inspirational thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters; KING, D.W.: Blazing new trails: in celebration of an audacious career; FIDEL, R.: The user-centered approach; SMITH, L.: Subject access in interdisciplinary research; DRABENSTOTT, K.M.: Web search strategies; LAM, V.-T.: Enhancing subject access to monographs in Online Public Access Catalogs: table of contents added to bibliographic records; JOHNSON, E.H.: Objects for distributed heterogeneous information retrieval

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 28(2001) no.2, S.97-100 (S. Betrand-Gastaldy); Information processing and management 37(2001) no.5, S.766-767 (H. Borko); JASIST 23(2002) no.1, S.58-60 (A.T.D. Petrou); Library and information science research 23(2001) S.200-202 (D.J. Karpuk)

0.0066037136 = product of:
  0.01981114 = sum of:
    0.007982075 = weight(_text_:in in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007982075 = score(doc=168,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.13442196 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.011829065 = product of:
      0.02365813 = sum of:
        0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02365813 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, 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=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The effect that content and layout of bibliographic displays had on the ability of end-users to process catalog information was tested using a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design. Participants were asked to perform two related tasks during the course of the experiment. In the first task, they were asked to select a set of items that they would examine further for a hypothetical paper they must write, using a simulated online catalog to make their assessments of relevance. In the second task, they were asked to examine 20 bibliographic records, decide whether they would choose to examine these items further on the shelf, and identify the data elements that they used to formulate their relevance decision. One group viewed bibliographic records on an interface similar to current online catalogs, one that used data labels and contained data elements commonly found. A second group viewed these records on an interface in which the labels had been removed, but the data elements were the same as those in the first. The third group viewed these records on a labeled display that included enhanced data elements on the brief record display. The final group viewed these records with the same brief record data elements as the third group, but with the labels removed, using ISBD and AACR2 punctuation standards. For the first task, participants using enhanced brief screen interfaces viewed more brief screens and fewer full screens than their counterparts. Screen durations for the second 10 screens were found to have dropped from those of the first 10 screens. Statistical analyses comparing demographic variables to the screen frequencies uncovered many significant differences. Participants using the enhanced-content interfaces made fewer selections from index and full screens, and more selections from brief screens. For the second task, participants who used enhanced-content interfaces were able to make some sort of relevance judgment more frequently than those who used standard-content interfaces.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.00639499 = product of:
  0.01918497 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=2509,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.010350432 = product of:
      0.020700864 = sum of:
        0.020700864 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020700864 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A relevancy-ranking algorithm for a natural language interface to Boolean online public access catalogs (OPACs) was formulated and compared with that currently used in a knowledge-based search interface called the E-Referencer, being developed by the authors. The algorithm makes use of seven weIl-known ranking criteria: breadth of match, section weighting, proximity of query words, variant word forms (stemming), document frequency, term frequency and document length. The algorithm converts a natural language query into a series of increasingly broader Boolean search statements. In a small experiment with ten subjects in which the algorithm was simulated by hand, the algorithm obtained good results with a mean overall precision of 0.42 and mean average precision of 0.62, representing a 27 percent improvement in precision and 41 percent improvement in average precision compared to the E-Referencer. The usefulness of each step in the algorithm was analyzed and suggestions are made for improving the algorithm.

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.0060039847 = product of:
  0.018011954 = sum of:
    0.0061828885 = weight(_text_:in in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061828885 = score(doc=1447,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.011829065 = product of:
      0.02365813 = sum of:
        0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02365813 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, 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=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.003292438 = product of:
  0.019754628 = sum of:
    0.019754628 = weight(_text_:in in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019754628 = score(doc=2541,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.33267736 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the OPAC integration in the University of Michigan's local implementation of materials digitized in the partnership with Google. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a discussion of different strategies used in integrating metadata with digital resources and presenting the digital objects to the user in the OPAC. Findings - The paper finds that methods that had served in smaller digitization projects require more automation and error reduction processes in an undertaking of this scale. Increased integration with the OPAC is one approach. Originality/value - Michigan is the first of the Google partners to mount their materials themselves and others involved in mass digitization may be interested in the experience.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Information organization futures"

0.0030914443 = product of:
  0.018548666 = sum of:
    0.018548666 = weight(_text_:in in 4755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018548666 = score(doc=4755,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.3123684 = fieldWeight in 4755, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4755)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes the results of a research survey conducted at the Department of Library and Information Science, University of Madras, Chennai, India which examines features provided in online public access catalogues (OPACs) in Tamil Nadu. OPACs are recent developments in libraries in India in general and Tamil Nadu in particular. A review of the literature reveals that only a few studies on OPACs in India have been conducted and there is no comprehensive study about the OPACs in Tamil Nadu. A sample of 50 libraries in Tamil Nadu were selected at random, out of which 36 responded. The analysis of the data represents the state-of-the-art of the libraries in the summer of 2002. The major findings of the survey reveal emerging trends in OPAC.

0.0027546515 = product of:
  0.016527908 = sum of:
    0.016527908 = weight(_text_:in in 2198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016527908 = score(doc=2198,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27833787 = fieldWeight in 2198, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2198)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Over the last couple of years, there has been a surge of activity in the library automation arena directed toward improved user interfaces. As Breeding looks at the events and activities that have transpired over the last year or so, Breeding sees an incredible amount of progress in creating interfaces that help librarians compete better in an ever more crowded landscape of information providers. It's strategically important for libraries to have technologies in place that will optimize delivery of content and services in the context of today's Web. Breeding believes that failure to make progress in this area can foster a creep of irrelevancy as potential users increasingly rely on information resources provided by entities other than libraries.

Source

Computers in libraries. 27(2007) no.9, S.34-

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=232,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper examines some traditional information searching methods and their role in Hungarian OPACs. What challenges are there in the digital and online environment? How do users work with them and do they give users satisfactory results? What kinds of techniques are users employing? In this paper I examine the user interfaces of UDC, thesauri, subject headings etc. in the Hungarian library. The key question of the paper is whether a universal system or local solutions is the best approach for searching in the digital environment.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 6857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=6857,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 6857, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6857)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium held in Washington, DC at the Library of Congress, November 2000