Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.007881311 = product of:
  0.055169173 = sum of:
    0.055169173 = weight(_text_:medien in 2150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055169173 = score(doc=2150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17681947 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7066307 = idf(docFreq=1085, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037568163 = queryNorm
        0.31200847 = fieldWeight in 2150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7066307 = idf(docFreq=1085, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2150)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Seit Einführung der neuen Discovery-Kataloge stehen unseren Nutzerinnen und Nutzern zusätzlich Millionen von Dokumenten neben dem lokalen Buchbestand zur Verfügung. Diese Zielgruppe muss in die Lage versetzt werden, die für sie relevanten Titel einfach und sicher zu finden. Die Qualität von Empfehlungsfunktionen und besonders der Relevanz-Ranking-Methoden sind daher für den Erfolg eines Discovery-Systems besonders wichtig. Das Ranking bibliothekarischer Suchmaschinentechnik ignoriert bisher das Feedback durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. Die Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen (SuUB) setzt mit dem in Bremen entwickelten Discovery-System "E-LIB" seit Sommer 2011 zusätzlich auf eine Modifikation des Treffer-Rankings über Popularitätsfaktoren der Medien wie Klickstatistik, Auflagen- und Exemplarzahl. Die maßgeschneiderte Entwicklung eines eigenen Bibliothekskataloges, den die SuUB seit 2004 mit dem Discovery-System "E-LIB" in Bremen betreibt, erlaubt die schnelle und flexible Anpassung von Retrievalfunktionen an die Bedürfnisse der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer vor Ort.

0.0022155237 = product of:
  0.015508666 = sum of:
    0.015508666 = weight(_text_:information in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015508666 = score(doc=3817,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06595008 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037568163 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.

Content

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Monash University in 2017 Faculty of Information Technology. Vgl.: https://figshare.com/articles/Models_of_the_bibliographic_universe/5216347.

Imprint

Melbourne : Monash University; Faculty of Information Technology

0.0015505435 = product of:
  0.010853804 = sum of:
    0.010853804 = weight(_text_:information in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010853804 = score(doc=4105,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06595008 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037568163 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4105, 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=4105)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

9.1366656E-4 = product of:
  0.0063956655 = sum of:
    0.0063956655 = weight(_text_:information in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063956655 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06595008 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037568163 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3871, 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=3871)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.