Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × theme_ss:"OPAC"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.01 
    0.012231203 = product of:
  0.030578006 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
    Type
    a
  2. Spalding, T.: Breaking into the OPAC (2009) 0.01 
    0.008234787 = product of:
  0.020586967 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
    0.011051352 = product of:
      0.022102704 = sum of:
        0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022102704 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Imprint
    Medford, N.J. : Information Today
    Type
    a
  3. Sauperl, A.; Saye, J.D.: Have we made any progress? : catalogues of the future revisited (2009) 0.01 
    0.006338624 = product of:
  0.01584656 = sum of:
    0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009010308 = score(doc=2843,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
    0.006836252 = product of:
      0.013672504 = sum of:
        0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013672504 = score(doc=2843,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Type
    a
  4. Hahn, U.; Schulze, M.: Katalogerweiterungen, Mashups und Elemente der Bibliothek 2.0" in der Praxis : der Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek der Helmut-Schmidt-Universität (IHSU) Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg (2009) 0.01 
    0.0061156014 = product of:
  0.015289003 = sum of:
    0.002724461 = weight(_text_:a in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002724461 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
    0.012564542 = product of:
      0.025129084 = sum of:
        0.025129084 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025129084 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 2.2009 19:40:38
    Type
    a
  5. Markey, K.: ¬The online library catalog : paradise lost and paradise regained? (2007) 0.01 
    0.0057224436 = product of:
  0.0143061085 = sum of:
    0.0075385654 = weight(_text_:a in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075385654 = score(doc=1172,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14100032 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
    0.006767543 = product of:
      0.013535086 = sum of:
        0.013535086 = weight(_text_:information in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013535086 = score(doc=1172,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Type
    a
  6. Calhoun, K.: ¬The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools : Prepared for the Library of Congress (2006) 0.01 
    0.005269977 = product of:
  0.013174942 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=5013,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
    0.0054690014 = product of:
      0.010938003 = sum of:
        0.010938003 = weight(_text_:information in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010938003 = score(doc=5013,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.
  7. Whitney , C.; Schiff, L.: ¬The Melvyl Recommender Project : developing library recommendation services (2006) 0.00 
    0.0049910345 = product of:
  0.012477586 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Type
    a
  8. Riesthuis, G.J.A.; Zumer, M.: FRBR and FRANAR : subject access (2004) 0.00 
    0.0043453877 = product of:
  0.010863469 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=2646,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.003157529 = product of:
      0.006315058 = sum of:
        0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006315058 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.
    Content
    1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.
    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
    Type
    a
  9. Mönnich, M.; Spiering, M.: Einsatz von BibTip als Recommendersystem m Bibliothekskatalog (2008) 0.00 
    0.002940995 = product of:
  0.007352487 = sum of:
    0.0034055763 = weight(_text_:a in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034055763 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Type
    a
  10. Bertelmann, R.; Höhnow, T.; Volz, S.: Bibliothekssuchmaschine statt Bibliothekskatalog (2007) 0.00 
    0.0023527963 = product of:
  0.0058819903 = sum of:
    0.002724461 = weight(_text_:a in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002724461 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
    0.003157529 = product of:
      0.006315058 = sum of:
        0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006315058 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Type
    a
  11. Wakimoto, J.C.: Scope of the library catalog in times of transition (2009) 0.00 
    0.0023357389 = product of:
  0.011678694 = sum of:
    0.011678694 = weight(_text_:a in 2993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011678694 = score(doc=2993,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2993, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2993)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    There has been a flurry of constructive discussion and debate about the future of cataloging and the catalog, from FRBR and RDA on cataloging rules (with a focus on content) to next-generation discovery interfaces for the catalog (with a focus on carrier). A topic that is not receiving as much attention in the midst of these discussions is the scope of the library catalog. This article offers an opinion on the scope of the catalog in a research library, and the role of the catalogers in this time of transition. The article will also elicit some practical approaches that catalogers can take to reposition the catalog for improved user-access and resource discovery.
    Type
    a
  12. Angelus, A.; Eichhorn-Berndt, C.; Schnelling, H.: Digitalisierung des Realkataloges (Hartwig-Katalog) der Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt und seine Visualisierung im Internet (2000) 0.00 
    0.002311782 = product of:
  0.01155891 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 4470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=4470,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4470, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4470)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a
  13. Oberhauser, O.: Card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) : an international survey (2003) 0.00 
    0.0021322283 = product of:
  0.010661141 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=4179,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper surveys card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) - online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards and more or less sophisticated mechanisms for browsing or searching. Solutions of this kind have been implemented by a number of libraries in various countries since the mid-1990s, mainly as inexpensive altematives to a full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. The article presents a Web page dedicated to CIPACs, identifies and describes four main categories of interface software for such catalogues, and provides a comparative overview of 50 CIPACs in 11 countries, looking at aspects such as geographical distribution, growth and size, software, number of catalogues, processing and index creation, navigation, image formats, and other features.
    Type
    a
  14. Cathro, W.: New frameworks for resource discovery and delivery : the changing role of the catalogue (2006) 0.00 
    0.0018020617 = product of:
  0.009010308 = sum of:
    0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009010308 = score(doc=6107,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    There is currently a lively debate about the role of the library catalogue and its relationship to other resource discovery tools. An example of this debate is the recent publication of a report commissioned by the Library of Congress on "the changing nature of the catalogue" As part of this debate, the role of union catalogues is also being re-examined. Some commentators have suggested that union catalogues, by virtue of their size, can aggregate both supply and demand, thus increasing the chance that a relatively little-used resource will be discovered by somebody for whom it is relevant. During the past year, the National Library of Australia (NLA) has been considering the future of its catalogue and its role in the resource discovery and delivery process. The review was prompted, in part, by the redevelopment of the Australian union catalogue and its exposure on the web as a free public service, badged as Libraries Australia. The NLA examined the enablers and inhibitors to proposition "that it replace its catalogue with Libraries Australia, as the primary database to be searched by users". Flowing from this review, the NLA is aiming to undertake a number of tasks to move in the medium to long term towards a scenario in which it could deprecate its local catalogue. Bezug zum Calhoun-Report
    Language
    a
  15. Oberhauser, O.: Card-Image Public Access Catalogues (CIPACs) : issues concerned with their planning and implementation (2003) 0.00 
    0.0014156717 = product of:
  0.007078358 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=5065,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This article identifies and discusses the issues and problems that need to be considered in the process of planning and implementing card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs). CIPACs are online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards with more or less sophisticated mechanisms for browsing or searching. Solutions of this kind have been implemented by a number of libraries in various countries since the mid-1990s, mainly as inexpensive alternatives to full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. Based upon a questionnaire and relevant literature, the article looks at the following aspects: cost, conversion Speed, universal access, saving of space, preservational aspects, Software selection, preparing the card catalogue for conversion, scanning and quality control, image standards, optical character recognition, manual and intellectual input, technological aspects, administrative tools, organisational aspects, peculiarities of old catalogues, presentation of CIPACs to the users, and life expectancy of card-image catalogues.
    Type
    a
  16. Oberhauser, O.: Teil 2: Ergebnisse der Befragung : Web-Umfrage zur Benutzung von Card-Image Online-Katalogen (2002) 0.00 
    0.0013622305 = product of:
  0.0068111527 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=983,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 983, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=983)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a
  17. Mühlberger, G.: ¬Der digitalisierte Nominalkatalog der Universitätsbibliothek Innsbruck (2004) 0.00 
    0.001155891 = product of:
  0.005779455 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 2200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=2200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2200)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Location
    A
    Type
    a
  18. Mann, T.: ¬The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools. Final report. March 17, 2006. Prepared for the Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun : A critical review (2006) 0.00 
    0.001155891 = product of:
  0.005779455 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=5012,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgement or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model - and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.
  19. Flimm, O.: ¬Die Open-Source-Software OpenBib an der USB Köln : Überblick und Entwicklungen in Richtung OPAC 2.0 (2007) 0.00 
    0.0010897844 = product of:
  0.005448922 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a
  20. Lewandowski, D.: Suchmaschinen als Konkurrenten der Bibliothekskataloge : Wie Bibliotheken ihre Angebote durch Suchmaschinentechnologie attraktiver und durch Öffnung für die allgemeinen Suchmaschinen populärer machen können (2006) 0.00 
    9.5356145E-4 = product of:
  0.004767807 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=3449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • d 14
  • e 10
  • a 1

Types

  • a 24
  • el 5
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes