Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014573957 = product of:
  0.04372187 = sum of:
    0.023555377 = weight(_text_:services in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023555377 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.14197156 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
    0.02016649 = product of:
      0.04033298 = sum of:
        0.04033298 = weight(_text_:resources in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04033298 = score(doc=1172,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.24449319 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

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.

0.009714074 = product of:
  0.058284443 = sum of:
    0.058284443 = weight(_text_:services in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058284443 = score(doc=2525,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

0.009517809 = product of:
  0.057106856 = sum of:
    0.057106856 = weight(_text_:services in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057106856 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.344191 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0067301076 = product of:
  0.040380646 = sum of:
    0.040380646 = weight(_text_:services in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040380646 = score(doc=4105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Drawings of The Florentine Painters project created the first online database of Florentine Renaissance drawings by applying Linked Open Data (LOD) techniques to a foundational text of the same name, first published by Bernard Berenson in 1903 (revised and expanded editions, 1938 and 1961). The goal was to make Berenson's catalog information-still an essential information resource today-available in a machine-readable format, allowing researchers to access the source content through open data services. This paper provides a technical overview of the methods and processes applied in the conversion of Berenson's catalog to LOD using the CIDOC-CRM ontology; it also discusses the different phases of the project, focusing on the challenges and issues of data transformation and publishing. The project was funded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and organized by Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Catalog: http://florentinedrawings.itatti.harvard.edu. Data Endpoint: http://data.itatti.harvard.edu.

0.0033266083 = product of:
  0.01995965 = sum of:
    0.01995965 = product of:
      0.0399193 = sum of:
        0.0399193 = weight(_text_:resources in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0399193 = score(doc=1230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A Virtual union catalog is a possible alternative to the centralized database of distributed resources found in many library systems. Such a catalog would not be maintained in a single location but would be created in real time by searching each local campus or affiliate library's catalog through the Z39.50 protocol. This would eliminate the redundancy of record storage as well as the expense of loading and maintaining access to the central catalog. This article describes a test implementation of a virtual union catalog for the University of California system. It describes some of the differences between the virtual catalog and the existing, centralized union catalog (MELVYL). The research described in the paper suggests enhancements that must be made if the virtual union catalog is to become a reasonable service alternative to the MELVYL® catalog.

0.0031363564 = product of:
  0.018818138 = sum of:
    0.018818138 = product of:
      0.037636276 = sum of:
        0.037636276 = weight(_text_:resources in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037636276 = score(doc=3876,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.22814612 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely