Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028033193 = product of:
  0.042049788 = sum of:
    0.017470727 = weight(_text_:information in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017470727 = score(doc=600,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
    0.02457906 = product of:
      0.04915812 = sum of:
        0.04915812 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04915812 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article first compares and contrasts the essential, fundamental differences between traditional and digital information mediums. It then reexamines the role of the online public access catalog (OPAC), refines the definition of library's catalog, and advocates the addition of Internet resources within the OPAC. Next, the article describes the building of the Alex Catalog, a catalog of Internet resources in the in the form of MARC records. Finally, this article outlines a process of integrating the futher inclusion of other Internet resources into OPACs as well as some of the obstacles such a process manifests.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170

0.02462182 = product of:
  0.03693273 = sum of:
    0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01235367 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
    0.02457906 = product of:
      0.04915812 = sum of:
        0.04915812 = weight(_text_:22 in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04915812 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Briefly follows the debate concerning: the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the WWW; possible replacement of USMARC format with SGML; and the possible demise of OPACs that do not migrate to the WWW. Discusses the approach taken by the Text encoding Initative (TEI) in their use of a mandatory TEI header in their standard SGML application as the first since CIP to explore attaching bibliographic information to the item itself to assist cataloguing

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.0167263 = product of:
  0.02508945 = sum of:
    0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0088240495 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
    0.016265402 = product of:
      0.032530803 = sum of:
        0.032530803 = weight(_text_:management in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032530803 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Das Karlsruher Recommendersystem BibTip An der Universität Karlsruhe wurden im Zeitraum von 2002 bis 2007 mehrere DFG-Projekte durchgeführt, welche die Entwicklung von Recommendersystemen für den Einsatz in Bibliotheken zum Gegenstand hatten. Daraus ist BibTip hervorgegangen. Projektpartner waren dabei die Universitätsbibliothek Karlsruhe und das Institut für Informationswirtschaft und -management von Prof. Dr. Andreas Geyer-Schulz an der Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften (http://www.em.unikarlsruhe.de/research/projects/reckvk/). Im Institut wurden die Algorithmen und die technischen Grundlagen von BibTip entwickelt. Die Bibliothek war für die Einbindung in den Katalog, die Erfassung des statistischen Datenmaterials und die Entwicklung der Dienstleistung BibTip verantwortlich. Das Projekt war so erfolgreich, dass es im Auftrag der DFG von den Projektnehmern im Dezember beim Fall 2007 Task Force Meeting der Coalition for Networked Information in Washington DC präsentiert wurde. Bei BibTip handelt es sich um einen verhaltensbasierten Recommender. Dieser Typus von Recommenderdiensten basiert auf der - im Fall von BibTip anonymisierten - Beobachtung von Nutzerverhalten und der statistischen Auswertung dieser Daten. Im Internet-Handel ergeben sich die Nutzungsdaten aus Kaufvorgängen oder aus den Klicks auf Links in Webseiten. Im Falle von BibTip sind es die Aufrufe von Volltitelanzeigen im Online-Katalog.

0.009363452 = product of:
  0.028090354 = sum of:
    0.028090354 = product of:
      0.056180708 = sum of:
        0.056180708 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056180708 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.009363452 = product of:
  0.028090354 = sum of:
    0.028090354 = product of:
      0.056180708 = sum of:
        0.056180708 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056180708 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.0082357805 = product of:
  0.02470734 = sum of:
    0.02470734 = weight(_text_:information in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02470734 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Imprint

Medford, N.J. : Information Today

0.0082357805 = product of:
  0.02470734 = sum of:
    0.02470734 = weight(_text_:information in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02470734 = score(doc=1878,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.

0.0058827 = product of:
  0.017648099 = sum of:
    0.017648099 = weight(_text_:information in 8011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017648099 = score(doc=8011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 8011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8011)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library and information science. 1990, no.28, S.11-20

0.0058827 = product of:
  0.017648099 = sum of:
    0.017648099 = weight(_text_:information in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017648099 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.005823576 = product of:
  0.017470727 = sum of:
    0.017470727 = weight(_text_:information in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017470727 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Advances in computer and communication technology technology have had an important impact on OPACs. The client server architecture model, the Internet, protocols, and standards such as Z39.50 have resulted in newly designed interfaces which reduce syntactic and semantic knowledge required to conduct effective online searches. Experimental OPACs have been developed in an attempt to assist users in conceptual transformation of their information needs into searchable queries. These experiments are based primarily on determining users' behaviour at the OPAC terminal, which needs much further study. Other non traditional models for storing and retrieving information should be considered to create an intuitive OPAC

0.0050945682 = product of:
  0.015283704 = sum of:
    0.015283704 = weight(_text_:information in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015283704 = score(doc=2843,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0050433646 = product of:
  0.015130093 = sum of:
    0.015130093 = weight(_text_:information in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015130093 = score(doc=1172,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.16628155 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.0049916366 = product of:
  0.014974909 = sum of:
    0.014974909 = weight(_text_:information in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014974909 = score(doc=8192,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Contends that library catalogues need to be seen as merely part of the information seeker's world and proposes the concept of a learning catalogue for library clients which will capture ways in which clients use data thus providing ideas for the further development of the system. Proposes a client centred system which is separated to maintain the bibliographic database from the mode of presentation of that data to the client. The designer of retrieval systems, by accepting that each client brings a unique view of the world's knowledge base to the information seeking activity, needs to acknowledge that this view of the world must be handled uniquely. By overlaying the idea of a learning component, it is possible to see how future queries might be handled more efficiently and the system can grow with client's developing needs

0.0049916366 = product of:
  0.014974909 = sum of:
    0.014974909 = weight(_text_:information in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014974909 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.004681726 = product of:
  0.014045177 = sum of:
    0.014045177 = product of:
      0.028090354 = sum of:
        0.028090354 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028090354 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, 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=2672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:40:38

0.0041178903 = product of:
  0.01235367 = sum of:
    0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01235367 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.0041178903 = product of:
  0.01235367 = sum of:
    0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01235367 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.

0.0035296201 = product of:
  0.01058886 = sum of:
    0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 4073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058886 = score(doc=4073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4073)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Nach einschlägigen Fortbildungsveranstaltungen in Stuttgart in den Jahren 2004 und 20071 beschäftigte sich der Regionalverband Südwest des Vereins Deutscher Bibliothekare (VDB) bereits zum dritten Mal in einer Vortragsveranstaltung mit aktuellen und zukünftigen Entwicklungen bei Bibliothekskatalogen: "Der Katalog der Zukunft (Teil 3): Die Benutzer in den Mittelpunkt!" war der Titel der Veranstaltung am 11. November 2010. Gastgeber war - wie schon bei der Premiere der Veranstaltungsreihe im Jahr 2004 - die Universitätsbibliothek Stuttgart. Da der Landesverband Baden-Württemberg des Berufsverband Information Bibliothek (BIB) ebenfalls an der Thematik interessiert war, bot es sich an, die Fortbildung gemeinsam durchzuführen. Zugleich sollte damit ein Zeichen für eine engere Kooperation der beiden Berufsverbände gesetzt werden. Entsprechend wurde auch die Moderation geteilt: Vormittags moderierte Heidrun Wiesenmüller von der Stuttgarter Hochschule der Medien (VDB Südwest), nachmittags Isabell Leibing von der Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz (BIB Baden-Württemberg). Die Vortragsfolien und weitere Materialien können über die Websites des VDB-Regionalverbands Südwest und der BIB-Landesgruppe Baden-Württemberg abgerufen werden.

0.00235308 = product of:
  0.00705924 = sum of:
    0.00705924 = weight(_text_:information in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00705924 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.00235308 = product of:
  0.00705924 = sum of:
    0.00705924 = weight(_text_:information in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00705924 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Google und Konsorten haben das Suchverhalten unserer Nutzer grundlegend verändert. Erwartet wird eine Suche, die einfach, unkompliziert und übersichtlich sein soll. Längst haben Bibliotheken und Anbieter von Bibliothekssystemen darauf reagiert und die Suchoberflächen entschlackt. Trotzdem sehen viele Bibliothekskataloge nach wie vor wie "Bibliothekskataloge" aus. Letztlich versuchen viele der Suchmasken immer noch die Vielfalt der erfassten Metadaten und die daraus resultierenden differenzierten Suchmöglichkeiten den Nutzern auf den ersten Blick nahe zu bringen. Das geht, was zahlreiche Studien belegen, häufig an den Bedürfnissen der Nutzer vorbei: Diese wünschen sich einen einfachen und schnellen Zugriff auf die für sie relevante Information. Bibliothekskataloge sind längst nicht mehr nur Bestandsverzeichnisse, sondern Zugangssysteme zur Vielfalt der von der Bibliothek vermittelten Informationen. Auch hier bieten Systemhäuser inzwischen Lösungen an, bei denen im Sinn einer verteilten Suche weitere Quellen mit einbezogen werden können. Im Folgenden soll der Lösungsweg vorgestellt werden, den die Bibliothek des Wissenschaftsparks Albert Einstein in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Kooperativen Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV) eingeschlagen hat, um mit diesen beiden veränderten Grundvoraussetzungen für ihr Serviceangebot umzugehen. Die Bibliothek des Wissenschaftsparks Albert Einstein - eine gemeinsame Bibliothek des GeoForschungsZentrums Potsdam, der Forschungsstelle Potsdam des Alfred Wegener Instituts für Polar- und Meeresforschung (zwei Helmholtz-Zentren) und des Potsdam-Instituts für Klimafolgenforschung (ein Leibniz-Institut) - ist eine Spezialbibliothek mit dem thematischen Schwerpunkt Geowissenschaften auf dem größten Campus der außeruniversitären Forschung in Brandenburg, dem Wissenschaftspark Albert Einstein auf dem Telegrafenberg in Potsdam.