Search (76 results, page 1 of 4)

0.067374445 = product of:
  0.101061665 = sum of:
    0.0771464 = weight(_text_:book in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0771464 = score(doc=889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34485358 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
    0.023915261 = product of:
      0.047830522 = sum of:
        0.047830522 = weight(_text_:search in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047830522 = score(doc=889,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Wir erleben zu Beginn des aufkommenden Informationszeitalters mit dem Siegeszug von Google und anderen Internet-Technologien einen Wandel im Verhalten von Wissenschaftlern und Studenten, der mit dem Einsatz von Google Scholar und Google Book Search einem Paradigmenwechsel für Bibliotheken und Informationsversorger gleichkommt. Der Artikel untersucht die technischen Hintergründe für den Erfolg dieser besonderen Art des Information Retrievals: Fulltext Indexing und Citation Ranking als besondere Form des Information Mining. Er diskutiert Stärken und auch Schwächen des Google-Ansatzes. Der Autor stellt sich auch der Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen es möglich ist, ein zu Google Scholar und der Google Book Search konkurrenzfähiges Retrieval in der Landschaft der Bibliotheken und Bibliotheksverbünde zu errichten. Die These ist, dass dieses unter Einsatz des Open Source Indexierers Lucene und des Web-Robots Nutch möglich ist. Bibliotheken können durch gezielten Einsatz solcher Internet-Technologien dem Nutzer die Leistungen, welche Google uns mit seinen Tools im Visible Web und mit Referenzen auf Citations in der Welt der Literatur zur Verfügung stellt, in vergleichbarer Art auch für ihre eigenen durch Lizenzen geschützten digitalen Journale und ihre speziellen lokal verfügbaren Ressourcen, auf die Internet-Suchmaschinen keine Zugriff haben, anbieten. Es besteht die Hoffnung, dass Nutzer dann nicht - wie in einer kürzlich erschienenen Studie des OCLC konstatiert - überwiegend im Internet verbleiben, sondern bei ihrer Suche auch den Weg zu den Angeboten der örtlichen Bibliothek attraktiv finden.

0.053448595 = product of:
  0.16034578 = sum of:
    0.16034578 = weight(_text_:book in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16034578 = score(doc=1883,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.7167647 = fieldWeight in 1883, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1883)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 1971 the eminent American scholar G. Thomas Tanselle wrote: "the day has not yet come when one can learn anything of a library's holdings of jackets by consulting its catalogue." Forty-four years later, library catalogs still do not allow that. Book-jackets, whose "original sin" is their being physically separate from the book, are nevertheless essential documents for the history of publishing. This article aims to show the necessity for access to the information about a single book's book-jacket directly from the library catalog; it considers the reasons why catalogers usually "distrust" book-jackets; and it aims to determine whether there is any change in attitude about taking book-jackets into account in cataloging.

0.050299995 = product of:
  0.07544999 = sum of:
    0.061717123 = weight(_text_:book in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061717123 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.27588287 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.013732869 = product of:
      0.027465738 = sum of:
        0.027465738 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027465738 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.03180495 = product of:
  0.09541484 = sum of:
    0.09541484 = sum of:
      0.0473498 = weight(_text_:search in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0473498 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04806504 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.

0.030858565 = product of:
  0.09257569 = sum of:
    0.09257569 = weight(_text_:book in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09257569 = score(doc=2586,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.41382432 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In pt.1, argued that modern classification theory and philosophy of science can help us understand problems of searching. In pt.2, discusses the problems in a more technical sense. considers thesauri and studies of of concept formation: choice of subject headings; definitions, and associations between subject headings; and the librarian as intermediary between the users and the library's texts. Tests the hypothesis that a catalogue record can be improved by adding information which makes the record more precise. If a record clearly indicates that a book is a typical or non-typical book on a subject, no improvement is necessary. discusses how and what new information to add and psychological barriers to this

0.027261382 = product of:
  0.081784144 = sum of:
    0.081784144 = sum of:
      0.04058554 = weight(_text_:search in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04058554 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041198608 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.025457015 = product of:
  0.076371044 = sum of:
    0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076371044 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library information searching lacks a descriptive theory which explains how a user decides to borrow one book and not another. Such theory should act as a reference framework against which cataloguing rules and the classification system can be measured, and should be based on 2 complementary perspectives, described in detail: modern classification theory, which explains what cataloguing and classification involve, and philosophy of science, which explains what happens when the user meets the catalogue record. Catalogue information must answer which work is described, and why this work on the subject is chosen. A descriptive theory is especially necessary for knowing what new information to add to the catalogue. Discusses this in a subsequent article

0.025457015 = product of:
  0.076371044 = sum of:
    0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076371044 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Without reform and adaptation to contemporary technology, existing paper libraries may become increasingly marginalized and eventually little more than book museums. Proposes a new method to organize access to paper resources by using relational database management systems technology to change libraries' existing data structures and concepts of organization of materials in order to create an open, shared, easy-to-use and cooperatively maintained system. Without substantial proactive change, users familiar with accessing and manipulating digital materials will become very intolerant of the anomalies and archaisms of libraries' card-based automated catalogues. Outlines the benefits of such a system and lists considerations which should be taken into account in its design

0.0218203 = product of:
  0.0654609 = sum of:
    0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0654609 = score(doc=278,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

File display-the way in which catalog records are arranged for display-is a principal determinant of access to printed library catalogs, whether they be on cards, on microform, or in book form. In 1980, both the American Library Association and the Library of Congress published new sets of filing rules which represent significant departures from traditional library catalog arrangement in North America. These new rules are analyzed and compared with each other and with their predecessors, the 1956 LC and the 1968 ALA filing rules, on the basis of fundamental attributes of files and filing: (1) the symbols considered in arranging records together with the filing values assigned to them, and (2) the underlying basis of filing-symbols or concepts. Numerous examples of the very different sequences which result in the application of these codes are provided and discussed. The purpose of this paper is to help clarify filing options and thereby to help librarians make more informed choices for the display of their own catalog files.

0.0218203 = product of:
  0.0654609 = sum of:
    0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0654609 = score(doc=457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The main purpose of the study was to determine if the online catalog can function both as a dictionary and classified catalog without requiring additional time or intellectual effort on the part of the cataloger. A total of 1842 MARC bibliographic records listed in the 370-379 classified section of American Book Publishing Record were studied. These records displayed 2735 subject headings. Of these, 1491 (55%) had a Library of Congress classification number linked to them. An alphabetical and classified index was created using primary subjects and their related classification numbers. While such an index could be a useful browsing device if integrated into an online catalog, creating a bona fide classified catalog would require assigning classification numbers to the secondary subject headings.

0.020572376 = product of:
  0.061717123 = sum of:
    0.061717123 = weight(_text_:book in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061717123 = score(doc=5887,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.27588287 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

"I can't presume to know how other catalogers view the systems, information resources, and institutions with which they engage on a daily basis. David Paton gives us a glimpse in this issue of the affective experiences of bibliographers and catalogers of artists' books in South Africa, and it is clear that the emotional range among them is wide. What I can say is that catalogers' feelings and worldviews, whatever they may be, give the library its shape. I think we can agree that the librarians who constructed the Library of Congress Classification around 1900, Melvil Dewey, and the many classifiers around the world past and present, have had particular sets of desires around control and access and order. We all are asked to submit to those desires in our library work, as well as our own pursuit of knowledge and pleasure reading. And every decision regarding the aboutness of a book, or about where to place it within a particular discipline, takes place in a cataloger's affective and experiential world. While the classification provides the outlines, the catalogers color in the spaces with the books, based on their own readings of the book descriptions and their interpretations of the classification scheme. The decisions they make and the structures to which they are bound affect the circulation of books and their readers across the library. Indeed, some of the encounters will be unexpected, strange, frustrating, frightening, shame-inducing, awe-inspiring, and/or delightful. The emotional experiences of students described in Mabee and Fancher's article, as well as those of any visitor to the library, are all affected by classificatory design. One concern is that a library's ordering principles may reinforce or heighten already existing feelings of precarity or marginality. Because the classifications are hidden from patrons' view, it is difficult to measure the way the order affects a person's mind and body. That a person does not consciously register the associations does not mean that they are not affected."

0.018310493 = product of:
  0.054931477 = sum of:
    0.054931477 = product of:
      0.10986295 = sum of:
        0.10986295 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10986295 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.018310493 = product of:
  0.054931477 = sum of:
    0.054931477 = product of:
      0.10986295 = sum of:
        0.10986295 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10986295 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 1861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=1861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 1861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1861)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many small libraries do not have the resources to build a holdings database but the availability of affordable scanners and improved OCR software has made possible a new approach for creating online databases. Describes the work undertaken at the Otto Hahn Library of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Germany, to create a database consisting of the titles, bibliographic descriptions and contents tables of books acquired by the library. The book information and table of contents pages are scanned and converted to text using OCR software. A computer program is used to extract as much information as possible, in particular from the CIP data with corrections and missing information being supplied manually. Finally, the information, which consists of: title; author; ISBN; publication year; call number; series; language; and other relevant information for books, as well as the entire table of contents, is stored and added to an Ovid database using the Ovid Local Loader software. Pays particular attention to the algorithm used to extract specific information from the CIP data. 2 OCR software packeges have been tested: OmniPage Pro 7.0 and FineReader 3.0. Experience has shown that FineReader is better at character recognition and retains the formatting better but OmniPage Pro is easier to train to recognize special characters

0.018174257 = product of:
  0.054522768 = sum of:
    0.054522768 = sum of:
      0.027057027 = weight(_text_:search in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027057027 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.027465738 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027465738 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

0.015621383 = product of:
  0.04686415 = sum of:
    0.04686415 = product of:
      0.0937283 = sum of:
        0.0937283 = weight(_text_:search in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0937283 = score(doc=3611,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.5321022 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Suchmaschinen befinden sich einerseits in einem beständigen Wandel. Andererseits gibt es immer wieder Entwicklungen, die die Suche "auf eine neue Ebene" heben. Eine solche Entwicklung, die wir zurzeit erleben, wird unter dem Label "Next Generation Search Systems" geführt. Der Begriff fasst die Veränderungen durch eine Vielfalt von Geräten und Eingabemöglichkeiten, die Verfügbarkeit von Verhaltensdaten en masse und den Wandel von Dokumenten zu Antworten zusammen.

Footnote

Bezug zum Buch: White, R.: Interactions with search systems. New York ; Cambridge University Press ; 2016.

0.014546866 = product of:
  0.043640595 = sum of:
    0.043640595 = weight(_text_:book in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043640595 = score(doc=3876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.19507864 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.013732869 = product of:
  0.041198608 = sum of:
    0.041198608 = product of:
      0.082397215 = sum of:
        0.082397215 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082397215 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, 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=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.013732869 = product of:
  0.041198608 = sum of:
    0.041198608 = product of:
      0.082397215 = sum of:
        0.082397215 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082397215 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, 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=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.011444058 = product of:
  0.034332175 = sum of:
    0.034332175 = product of:
      0.06866435 = sum of:
        0.06866435 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06866435 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, 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=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243