Search (90 results, page 2 of 5)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=4536,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Document theory examines the concept of a document and how it can serve with other concepts to understand communication, documentation, information, and knowledge. Knowledge organization itself is in practice based on the arrangement of documents representing concepts and knowledge. The word "document" commonly refers to a text or graphic record, but, in a semiotic perspective, non-graphic objects can also be regarded as signifying and, therefore, as documents. The steady increase in the variety and number of documents since prehistoric times enables the development of communities, the division of labor, and reduction of the constraints of space and time. Documents are related to data, facts, texts, works, information, knowledge, signs, and other documents. Documents have physical (material), cognitive, and social aspects.

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=1892,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Is there a future for the library cataloger? For the past thirty years this debate has increased with the continued growth of online resources and greater access to the World Wide Web. Many are concerned that library administrators believe budgetary resources would be better spent on other matters, leaving library users with an overabundance of electronic information to muddle through on their own. This article focuses on the future of the cataloging profession and its importance to the needs of library patrons.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=4105,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 5556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=5556,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5556, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5556)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The specter of impending change in library catalogues is strong but not very clear. In an attempt to help the clarification process, the first part of the present report discusses historical themes from the modern library catalogue legacy that has developed since the mid-nineteenth century-the origins and subsequent dominance of the dictionary catalogue for more than a century, considerations of library catalogue users and use over the same period, developments apart from the library catalogue during the twentieth century that have affected it, and aspects of the idea of the objects of a catalogue. In a second part, the general environment for the most recent period of library catalogue development is described, after which aspects of the historical legacy are used as a basis for raising questions relevant to impending library catalogue change.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=5560,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogues can be viewed as the latest manifestation of a tendency in library catalogue history to strive for centralization of access to collections-a single portal for the discovery of library resources. Due to an increasing volume of published materials and the explosion of online information resources during the Internet age, the library does not currently provide centralized access to its various information silos, nor does it provide a user-friendly search and retrieval experience for users whose expectations are shaped by Google and other major commercial Web sites. Searching across library resources is a complicated task, bearing high-attention "transaction costs" for the user, which discourage the use of library resources. Libraries need access systems that minimize complexity, easing discovery and delivery of resources for user populations. Here, the authors review past efforts of centralization of access, consider the potential of next-generation catalogues in the context of this historical tendency toward centralization of access, and describe what goals underlie that centralization.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=1103,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=3871,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5570,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5570, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5570)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the standard subject language used in library catalogues, are often criticized for their lack of currency, biased language, and atypical syndetic structure. Conversely, folksonomies (or tags), which rely on the natural language of their users, offer a flexibility often lacking in controlled vocabularies and may offer a means of augmenting more rigid controlled vocabularies such as LCSH. Content analysis studies have demonstrated the potential for folksonomies to be used as a means of enhancing subject access to materials, and libraries are beginning to integrate tagging systems into their catalogues. This study examines the utility of tags as a means of enhancing subject access to materials in library online public access catalogues (OPACs) through usability testing with the LibraryThing for Libraries catalogue enhancements. Findings indicate that while they cannot replace LCSH, tags do show promise for aiding information seeking in OPACs. In the context of information systems design, the study revealed that while folksonomies have the potential to enhance subject access to materials, that potential is severely limited by the current inability of catalogue interfaces to support tag-based searches alongside standard catalogue searches.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=1878,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=1891,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Kent State University Libraries' ETD cataloging process features contributions by authors, by the ETDcat application, and by catalogers. Who is doing what, and how much of it is findable in the library catalog? An empirical analysis is performed featuring simple frequencies within the KentLINK catalog, articulated by the use of a newly devised rubric. The researchers sought the degree to which the ETD authors, the applications, and the catalogers can supply accurate, findable metadata. Further development of combinatory cataloging processes is suggested. The method of examining the data and the rubric are provided as a framework for other metadata analysis.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3817,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 5169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=5169,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5169, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article is examining if the metadata quality of the Swedish National Bibliography could be measured through mapping the level of user awareness regarding the characteristics of the data. A qualitative meta-synthesis was carried out and results from two previous studies conducted at the National Library of Sweden were interpreted and conceptualized through an integrated analyze. The results of the meta-synthesis showed a need for an action plan for increasing user awareness to efficiently reach target groups of national bibliographic data at its fullest potential, i.e. user awareness on the usability and the quality of the metadata.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 5558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=5558,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5558, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discussions of quality in library cataloguing are traced from early library science literature to current debates. Three studies that examine dimensions of quality cataloguing in academic libraries, public libraries, and school libraries and a review of vendor processes update the issues surrounding a definition of bibliographic record quality and quality assurance processes. The implications of perceptions of bibliographic record quality on next-generation catalogues are presented with emphasis on the shift in the cataloguer's judgment from rigid standards for transcription to meeting the requirement for more metadata that matches the user need of find-ability.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=2006,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since the end of the last century, catalogs have been changing more and more quickly. This change is following a recognizable course, beginning with the publication of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, passing through the reorganization of international cataloging principles, the revision of international standards of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (International Standard for Bibliographic Description), and the foundation of new cataloging codes, such as Resource Description and Access. While principles, models, and rules are well established, bibliographic formats seem to be a bottleneck and users seem far from libraries. This article aims to present an overview of current changes, potential convergences, developments, and weak points from Ranganathan's point of view.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=4310,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Location

A

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=188,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 188, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2115,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2115, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=3142,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3142, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Location

A

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=3908,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3908, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Location

A

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=5565,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogues are providing opportunities for library professionals and users to interact, collaborate, and enhance core library functions. Technology, innovation, and creativity are all components that are merging to create a localized, online social space that brings our physical library services and experiences into an online environment. While patrons are comfortable creating user-generated information on commercial Web sites and social media Web sites, library professionals should be exploring alternative methods of use for these tools within the library setting. Can the library catalogue promote remote readers' advisory services and act as a localized "Google"? Will patrons or library professionals be the driving force behind user-generated content within our catalogues? How can cataloguers be sure that the integrity of their bibliographic records is protected while inviting additional data sources to display in our catalogues? As library catalogues bring our physical library services into the online environment, catalogues also begin to encroach or "mash-up" with other areas of librarianship that have not been part of a cataloguer's expertise. Using library catalogues beyond their traditional role as tools for discovery and access raises issues surrounding the expertise of library professionals and the benefits of collaboration between frontline and backroom staff.

Type

a