Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013946548 = product of:
  0.055786192 = sum of:
    0.055786192 = weight(_text_:assisted in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055786192 = score(doc=1219,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29897895 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04425879 = queryNorm
        0.18658903 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Funding from the UK Electronic Libraries (eLib) programme and the European Community's Fourth Framework programme assisted the initial emergence of information gateways (e.g., SOSIG, EEVL, OMNI in the UK, and EELS in Sweden). Other gateways have been developed by initiatives co-ordinated by national libraries (such as DutchESS in the Netherlands, and AVEL and EdNA in Australia) and by universities and research funding bodies (e.g., GEM in the US, the Finnish Virtual Library, and the German SSG-FI services). An account of the emergence of subject gateways since the mid-1990s by Dempsey gives an historical perspective -- informed by UK experience in particular -- and also considers the future development of subject gateways in relation to other services. When considering the development and future of gateways, it would be helpful to have a clear definition of the service offered by a so-called 'subject gateway'. Precise definitions of 'information gateways', 'subject gateways' and 'quality controlled subject gateways' have been debated elsewhere. Koch has reviewed definitions and suggested typologies that are useful, not least in showing the differences that exist between broadly similar services. Working definitions that we will use in this article are that a subject gateway provides a search service to high quality Web resources selected from a particular subject area, whereas information gateways have a wider criteria for selection of resources, e.g., a national approach. Inevitably in a rapidly changing international environment different people perceive different emphases in attempts to label services, the significant issue is that users, developers and designers can recognise and benefit from commonalties in approach.

0.012917642 = product of:
  0.051670566 = sum of:
    0.051670566 = product of:
      0.10334113 = sum of:
        0.10334113 = weight(_text_:instruction in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10334113 = score(doc=1163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.39342776 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss a user study done at the formative stage of development of a Math Tools developers' community. The Math Tools digital library, which aims to collect software tools to support K-12 and university mathematics instruction, has two synergistic purposes. One is to support federated search and the other is to create a community of practice in which developers and users can work together. While much research has explored the technical problem of federated search, there has been little investigation into how to grow a creative, working community around a digital library. To this end, we surveyed and interviewed members of the Math Tools community in order to elicit concerns and priorities. These data led to rich descriptions of the teachers, developers, and researchers who comprise this community. Insights from these descriptions were then used to inform the creation of a set of metaphors and design principles that the Math Tools team could use in their continuing design work.

0.0029982275 = product of:
  0.01199291 = sum of:
    0.01199291 = product of:
      0.02398582 = sum of:
        0.02398582 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02398582 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31