Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

0.018643044 = product of:
  0.055929128 = sum of:
    0.055929128 = product of:
      0.111858256 = sum of:
        0.111858256 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111858256 = score(doc=2760,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5267207 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.01761602 = product of:
  0.05284806 = sum of:
    0.05284806 = product of:
      0.10569612 = sum of:
        0.10569612 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10569612 = score(doc=4951,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.49770427 = fieldWeight in 4951, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To describe the process and results of the business-planning workpackage of The European Library (TEL) project, in which eight national libraries collaborated on a joint approach to access to their digital libraries. Design/methodology/approach - The methodology was in three parts: first, a literature review and the mapping of the partners' existing and planned digital products and services, then a structured interview or survey to determine the partners' business requirements from TEL, then a harmonization process, and finally the results were then combined with normal business planning elements to produce a mission and final business plan. Findings - Business planning for digital libraries has hitherto not been widely reported. The methodology proved to be an effective method of achieving mutual agreement among partners with widely different aims and characteristics. Eleven harmonized service aspirations were agreed and five categories of business aims. Research limitations/implications - Focused on the business aims of national libraries, but the methodology can be relevant to other collaborative projects. Together with the few existing other reports, this can form the basis for a new field of work. Practical implications - The work described led directly to the creation of an operational service, which will be open to all European national libraries. Originality/value - As far as is known, the first reporting of a collaborative international planning process for a digital library, and maybe the first multi-partner business plan between national libraries.

0.01743897 = product of:
  0.05231691 = sum of:
    0.05231691 = product of:
      0.10463382 = sum of:
        0.10463382 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10463382 = score(doc=2540,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.4927021 = fieldWeight in 2540, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This editorial seeks to examine the definition of a "digital library" to see whether one can be constructed that usefully distinguishes a digital library from other types of electronic resources. Design/methodology/approach - The primary methodology compares definitions from multiple settings, including formal institutional settings, working definitions from articles, and a synthesis created in a seminar at Humboldt University in Berlin. Findings - At this point, digital libraries are evolving too fast for any lasting definition. Definitions that users readily understand are too broad and imprecise, and definitions with more technical precision quickly grow too obscure for common use. Originality/value - A functional definition of a digital library would add clarity to a burgeoning field, especially when trying to evaluate a resource. The student perspective provides a fresh look at the problem.

0.0150549775 = product of:
  0.04516493 = sum of:
    0.04516493 = product of:
      0.09032986 = sum of:
        0.09032986 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09032986 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.014903667 = product of:
  0.044711 = sum of:
    0.044711 = product of:
      0.089422 = sum of:
        0.089422 = weight(_text_:22 in 6483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089422 = score(doc=6483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:43:01

0.012774572 = product of:
  0.038323715 = sum of:
    0.038323715 = product of:
      0.07664743 = sum of:
        0.07664743 = weight(_text_:22 in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07664743 = score(doc=4865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4865, 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=4865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:59

0.012774572 = product of:
  0.038323715 = sum of:
    0.038323715 = product of:
      0.07664743 = sum of:
        0.07664743 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07664743 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.012331214 = product of:
  0.03699364 = sum of:
    0.03699364 = product of:
      0.07398728 = sum of:
        0.07398728 = weight(_text_:methodology in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07398728 = score(doc=818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.348393 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to review the development of disciplinary repositories in the social sciences. Design/methodology/approach - The concentration of this article is on a discussion of the operational styles of existing repositories. Findings - The paper argues that appropriate operational styles of digital repositories will change the culture of information exchange in the social science disciplines. It finds that many successful repositories have employed the strategy of decentralization in their operations. This model can efficiently and effectively reach individual scholars in broad areas. Originality/value - Most existing repositories in the social sciences have not gained ground in attracting scholars. They could learn from successful repositories to improve their own operational plans.

0.010645477 = product of:
  0.03193643 = sum of:
    0.03193643 = product of:
      0.06387286 = sum of:
        0.06387286 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06387286 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, 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=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=4738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4738, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To investigate ways of demonstrating how portal implementations positively alter user information retrieval behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece reflecting on existing evidence about the nature of portal implementations, which extrapolates trends in user behaviour on the basis of these reflections. Findings - Although portal technologies probably do offer a way for libraries to create information tools that can compete with "one-stop shop" Internet search engines, there are likely difficulties in their pattern of usage which will have to be detected by effective quality measurement techniques. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the possible pitfalls of using portals to optimise users' information retrieval activity. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical guidelines for the evaluation of the success of library portal implementations. Originality/value - This editorial points out that, because the portal can be defined as a deliberate clone of a typical successful Internet search engine and may be presented to the naïve user in the same terms, the danger is that library portals might also clone the same information habits as Internet search engines, because of their ease of use. In trying to produce a tool that can meet Google on its own terms but with better content, we might reproduce some of the same educational disbenefits as Google: quality information retrieval is not purely a function of content, it is also a function of the user's perceptions and information habits.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=1898,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 1898, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to investigate the effects of different search and browse features in digital libraries (DLs) on task interactions, and what features would lead to poor user experience. Design/methodology/approach - Three operational DLs: ACM, IEEE CS, and IEEE Xplore are used in this study. These three DLs present different features in their search and browsing designs. Two information-seeking tasks are constructed: one search task and one browsing task. An experiment was conducted in a usability laboratory. Data from 35 participants are collected on a set of measures for user interactions. Findings - The results demonstrate significant differences in many aspects of the user interactions between the three DLs. For both search and browse designs, the features that lead to poor user interactions are identified. Research limitations/implications - User interactions are affected by specific design features in DLs. Some of the design features may lead to poor user performance and should be improved. The study was limited mainly in the variety and the number of tasks used. Originality/value - The study provided empirical evidence to the effects of interaction design features in DLs on user interactions and performance. The results contribute to our knowledge about DL designs in general and about the three operational DLs in particular.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=1905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 1905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to argue that digital library retrieval should be based on semantic representations and propose a semantic infrastructure for digital libraries. Design/methodology/approach - The approach taken is formal model based on subject representation for digital libraries. Findings - Search engines and search techniques have fallen short of user expectations as they do not give context based retrieval. Deploying semantic web technologies would lead to efficient and more precise representation of digital library content and hence better retrieval. Though digital libraries often have metadata of information resources which can be accessed through OAI-PMH, much remains to be accomplished in making digital libraries semantic web compliant. This paper presents a semantic infrastructure for digital libraries, that will go a long way in providing them and web based information services with products highly customised to users needs. Research limitations/implications - Here only a model for semantic infrastructure is proposed. This model is proposed after studying current user-centric, top-down models adopted in digital library service architectures. Originality/value - This paper gives a generic model for building semantic infrastructure for digital libraries. Faceted ontologies for digital libraries is just one approach. But the same may be adopted by groups working with different approaches in building ontologies to realise efficient retrieval in digital libraries.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=1909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=2559,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2559, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2559)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the ways in which Canadian digital library collections have incorporated knowledge organization systems into their search interfaces. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of data-gathering techniques was used. These were as follows: a review of the literature related to the application of knowledge organization systems, deep scanning of Canadian governmental and academic institutions web sites on the web, identify and contact researchers in the area of knowledge organization, and identify and contact people in the governmental organizations who are involved in knowledge organization and information management. Findings - A total of 33 digital collections were identified that have made use of some type of knowledge organization system. Thesauri, subject heading lists and classification schemes were the widely used knowledge organization systems in the surveyed Canadian digital library collections. Research limitations/implications - The target population for this research was limited to governmental and academic digital library collections. Practical implications - An evaluation of the knowledge organization systems interfaces showed that searching, browsing and navigation facilities as well as bilingual features call for improvements. Originality/value - This research contributes to the following areas: digital libraries, knowledge organization systems and services and search interface design.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=2589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2589, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to introduce the digital libraries of the future, their enabling technologies and their organisational models. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first discusses the requirements for the digital libraries of the future, then presents the DILIGENT infrastructure as a technological response to these requirements and, finally, it discusses the role that libraries can play in the organisational framework envisioned by DILIGENT. Findings - Digital libraries of the future will give access to a large variety of multimedia and multi-type documents created by integrating content from many different heterogeneous sources that range from repositories of text, images, and audio-video, to scientific data archives, and databases. The digital library will provide a seamless environment where the co-operative access, filtering, manipulation, generation, and preservation of these documents will be supported as a continuous cycle. Users of the library will be both consumers and producers of information, either by themselves or in collaborations with other users. Policy ensuring mechanisms will guarantee that the information produced is visible only to those who have the appropriate rights to access it. The realisation of these new digital libraries requires both the provision of a new technology and a change in the role played by the libraries in the information access-production cycle. Practical implications - Digital libraries of the future will be core instruments for serving a large class of applications, especially in the research field. Originality/value - The paper briefly introduces one of the most innovative technologies for digital libraries, and it discusses how it contributes to the realisation of a novel digital libraries scenario.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - One of the unresolved problems of the global information society is ensuring the long-term accessibility of digital documents. The project kopal tackles this problem head-on: in a three-year project kopal's objective is the practical testing and implementation of a cooperatively created and operated long-term archival system for digital resources. Design/methodology/approach - The system will be implemented in accordance with international standards for long-term archiving and metadata within the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) framework. The project partners, Die Deutsche Bibliothek (DDB), Göttingen State and University Library (SUB Göttingen), IBM Deutschland GmbH and the Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Göttingen (GWDG), will establish a cooperatively transferable solution for cultural heritage institutions, as well as for business and industry. Findings - Within the project, the project partners DDB and SUB Göttingen are developing software for the input and access of data, which will be released under an open-source license. Research limitations/implications - Long-term preservation methods and strategies will be discussed in general in the paper. Practical implications - The project will present a stable and reusable platform for additional partners and users, especially for cultural heritage organisations. Originality/value - The solution is based on Digital Information and Archiving System (DIAS), jointly devised by IBM and the National Library of The Netherlands in The Hague, and it will be adapted to the needs of the project with several extensions. Establishing a collaborative solution for long-term preservation is a milestone in the development of systems for the long-term availability of digital objects.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To describe how information visualization can be used in the design of interface tools for large-scale repositories. Design/methodology/approach - One challenge for designers in the context of large-scale repositories is to create interface tools that help users find specific information of interest. In order to be most effective, these tools need to leverage the cognitive characteristics of the target users. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the authors' target users are scientists and engineers who can be characterized as higher-order, analytical thinkers. In this paper, the authors describe a visualization tool they have created for making the authors' large-scale digital object repositories more usable for them: SearchGraph, which facilitates data set analysis by displaying search results in the form of a two- or three-dimensional interactive scatter plot. Findings - Using SearchGraph, users can view a condensed, abstract visualization of search results. They can view the same dataset from multiple perspectives by manipulating several display, sort, and filter options. Doing so allows them to see different patterns in the dataset. For example, they can apply a logarithmic transformation in order to create more scatter in a dense cluster of data points or they can apply filters in order to focus on a specific subset of data points. Originality/value - SearchGraph is a creative solution to the problem of how to design interface tools for large-scale repositories. It is particularly appropriate for the authors' target users, who are scientists and engineers. It extends the work of the first two authors on ActiveGraph, a read-write digital library visualization tool.

0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=4875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4875, 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=4875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:16