Search (226 results, page 11 of 12)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=240,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents several reflections on the traditional card catalogues and RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is "the" standard for creating the Semantic Web. This work grew out of discussion between the authors after Working Group on Metadata Schemes meeting held at IFLA conference in Buenos Aires (2004). The paper provides an overview of RDF from the perspective of cataloguers, catalogues and library cards. The central theme is the discussion of resource description as a discipline that could be based on RDF. RDF is explained as a very simple grammar, using metadata and ontologies to semantic search and access. RDF Knitting the Semantic Web Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Volume 43, Numbers 3/4 has the ability to enhance 21st century libraries and metadata interoperability in digital libraries, while maintaining the expressive power that was available to librarians when catalogues were physical artefacts.

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=1173,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=2882,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This short publication was made for two reasons. First, to provide a simple way to help people understand a bit more precisely what is defined by RDA, AACR2, MARC format, and so on. In this way, when someone says that MARC, or AARC2, or ISBD should change, they will have a better idea of what each term does and does not pertain to. One record has been chosen at random and analysed in various ways. This publication is far from complete and does not pretend to teach anything, it only demonstrates. When someone talks about, e.g. MARC, all the reader needs to do is look at the colored areas to get an idea of what that means.

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=3376,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bibliographic(al) control is important for retrieving documents in the library. Reviews previous studies in order to understand bibliographic(al) control from its very beginnings up to the present information age. The history, meaning, scope and functions of bibliographic(al) control are included. Finally, various catalogues are reviewed and discussed

Source

Journal of information; communication; and library science. 4(1998) no.3, S.58-67

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=177,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 177, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Beyond the transfiguration of the catalogue: the Visual... Catalog : Death and transfiguration of catalogues

0.0022056228 = product of:
  0.006616868 = sum of:
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=5390,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Managing cataloging and the organization of information: philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century. Part II: Specialized and academic libraries in the United States"

0.0022056228 = product of:
  0.006616868 = sum of:
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=2525,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0020501618 = product of:
  0.006150485 = sum of:
    0.006150485 = product of:
      0.01230097 = sum of:
        0.01230097 = weight(_text_:of in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01230097 = score(doc=1788,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of an analysis of 205 randomly selected records from the OCLC OLUC, to test the assumption that online catalogues have greatly improved subject searching capabilities, over card catalogues, by making other fields in the records searchable as subject access points (SAPs). Results showed considerable overlap (duplication) among the SAPs provided by the title, subject heading and classification number fields. On average, little more than 4 unique, unduplicated access points were found per record. Where title and classification number fields do add some access points not provided by subject headings, the increase is less than many librarians might be expected. Suggests that OPACs might outperform catalogues more in precision than in recall by allowing greater discrimination in searching; terms from different fields may be combined; titles offer greater specifity; searches can be limited by date, language or other criteria

0.0020501618 = product of:
  0.006150485 = sum of:
    0.006150485 = product of:
      0.01230097 = sum of:
        0.01230097 = weight(_text_:of in 5430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01230097 = score(doc=5430,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 5430, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

0.0020501618 = product of:
  0.006150485 = sum of:
    0.006150485 = product of:
      0.01230097 = sum of:
        0.01230097 = weight(_text_:of in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01230097 = score(doc=1883,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 1883, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 6440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=6440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 6440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The conventional library catalogue us doomed to oblivion and is a tool that is becoming obsolete under the pressure and development of new information technologies

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 914, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=914)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines the purpose of catalogues, how card catalogues first fulfilled that purpose and how computers represented a superior and inevitable replacement for the card catalogue, ultimately providing electronic access to information anywhere in the world. Describes recent developments in cataloguing and their implications for the future

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 5971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=5971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 5971, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5971)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes a system for identifying and correcting spelling and typographical errors in the OPAC data base at Adelphi University Library, New York State. Lists spelling errors found in the OPAC along with the number of occurrences

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 3947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=3947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0019529418 = product of:
  0.005858825 = sum of:
    0.005858825 = product of:
      0.01171765 = sum of:
        0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01171765 = score(doc=2017,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article examines the benefits of a Resource Description and Access (RDA) enrichment project for libraries. Enrichment projects "hybridize", or enrich legacy Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) bibliographic records with RDA data. Until a replacement for MARC is developed, bibliographic data will continue to be encoded in MARC 21 in many integrated library systems. Library catalogs contain records coded under both AACR2 and RDA standards. RDA enrichment projects benefit the patron experience because the data is cleaner and more consistent for patron use and display, cataloging staff workflows are simplified, and the consistency of the data is advantageous for system development and data exchange with other communities

0.001932911 = product of:
  0.005798733 = sum of:
    0.005798733 = product of:
      0.011597466 = sum of:
        0.011597466 = weight(_text_:of in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011597466 = score(doc=1973,freq=48.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.16928169 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
              6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
                48.0 = termFreq=48.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Google[trademark] has become a nearly omnipresent tool of the Internet, with its potential only now beginning to be realised. How can librarians effectively integrate this powerful search engine to provide service to their patrons? "Libraries and Google[trademark]" presents leading authorities discussing the many possibilities of using Google products as effective, user-friendly tools in libraries. Google Scholar and Print are extensively explored with an eye towards offering an expanded view of what is and may be possible for the future, with practical insights on how to make the most of the product's capabilities.

Content

Introduction: Libraries and Their Interrelationships with Google - William Miller Disruptive Beneficence: The Google Print Program and the Future of Libraries - Mark Sandler The Google Library Project at Oxford - Ronald Milne The (Uncertain) Future of Libraries in a Google World: Sounding an Alarm - Rick Anderson A Gaggle of Googles: Limitations and Defects of Electronic Access as Panacea - -Mark Y. Herring Using the Google Search Appliance for Federated Searching: A Case Study - Mary Taylor Google's Print and Scholar Initiatives: The Value of and Impact on Libraries and Information Services - Robert J. Lackie Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the Performance of Schoogle - Burton Callicott; Debbie Vaughn Google, the Invisible Web, and Librarians: Slaying the Research Goliath - Francine Egger-Sider; Jane Devine Choices in the Paradigm Shift: Where Next for Libraries? - Shelley E. Phipps; Krisellen Maloney Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library - Maurice C. York Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use - Janice Adlington; Chris Benda Running with the Devil: Accessing Library-Licensed Full Text Holdings Through Google Scholar - Rebecca Donlan; Rachel Cooke Directing Students to New Information Types: A New Role for Google in Literature Searches? - Mike Thelwall Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy Rachael Cathcart - Amanda Roberts Optimising Publications for Google Users - Alan Dawson Google and Privacy - Paul S. Piper Image: Google's Most Important Product - Ron Force Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack - Michael J. Krasulski; Steven J. Bell

Footnote

Co-published simultaneously as Internet reference services quarterly, vol. 10(1005), nos. 3/4 Rez. in: ZfBB 54(2007) H.2, S.98-99 (D. Lewandowski): "Google und Bibliotheken? Meist hat man leider den Eindruck, dass hier eher ein oder gedacht wird. Dies sehen auch die Herausgeber des vorliegenden Bandes und nehmen deshalb neben Beiträgen zur Diskussion um die Rolle der Bibliotheken im Zeitalter von Google auch solche auf, die Tipps zur Verwendung unterschiedlicher Google-Dienste geben. Die allgemeine Diskussion um Google und die Bibliotheken dreht sich vor allem um die Rolle, die Bibliotheken (mit ihren Informationsportalen) noch spielen können, wenn ihre Nutzer sowieso bei Google suchen, auch wenn die Bibliotheksangebote (zumindest von den Bibliothekaren) als überlegen empfunden werden. Auch wenn die Nutzer geschult werden, greifen sie doch meist lieber zur einfachen Recherchemöglichkeit bei Google oder anderen Suchmaschinen - vielleicht lässt sich die Situation am besten mit dem Satz eines im Buch zitierten Bibliothekars ausdrücken: »Everyone starts with Google except librarians.« (5.95) Sollen die Bibliotheken nun Google die einfache Recherche ganz überlassen und sich auf die komplexeren Suchfragen konzentrieren? Oder verlieren sie dadurch eine Nutzerschaft, die sich mittlerweile gar nicht mehr vorstellen kann, dass man mit anderen Werkzeugen als Suchmaschinen bessere Ergebnisse erzielen kann? Diese sicherlich für die Zukunft der Bibliotheken maßgebliche Frage wird in mehreren Beiträgen diskutiert, wobei auffällt, dass die jeweiligen Autoren keine klare Antwort bieten können, wie Bibliotheken ihre Quellen so präsentieren können, dass die Nutzer mit der Recherche so zufrieden sind, dass sie freiwillig in den Bibliotheksangeboten anstatt in Google recherchieren. Den Schwerpunkt des Buchs machen aber nicht diese eher theoretischen Aufsätze aus, sondern solche, die sich mit konkreten Google-Diensten beschäftigen. Aufgrund ihrer Nähe zu den Bibliotheksangeboten bzw. den Aufgaben der Bibliotheken sind dies vor allem Google Print und Google Scholar, aber auch die Google Search Appliance. Bei letzterer handelt es sich um eine integrierte Hard- und Softwarelösung, die die Indexierung von Inhalten aus unterschiedlichen Datenquellen ermöglicht. Der Aufsatz von Mary Taylor beschreibt die Vor- und Nachteile des Systems anhand der praktischen Anwendung in der University of Nevada.
Weitere Rez. in JASIST 59(2008) H.9, S.1531-1533 (J. Satyanesan): "Libraries and Google is an interesting and enlightening compilation of 18 articles on Google and its impact on libraries. The topic is very current, debatable, and thought provoking. Google has profoundly empowered individuals and transformed access to information and librarians are very much concerned about its popularity and visibility. In this book, the leading authorities discuss the usefulness of Google, its influence and potential menace to libraries, and its implications for libraries and the scholarly communication. They offer practical suggestions to cope with the changing situation. The articles are written from different perspective and express all shades of opinion, both hopeful and fearful. One can discern varied moods-apprehension, resignation, encouragement, and motivation-on the part of the librarians. This is an important book providing a wealth of information for the 21st century librarian. There is a section called "Indexing, Abstracting & Website/Internet Coverage," which lists major indexing and abstracting services and other tools for bibliographic access. The format of the articles is uniform with an introduction, key words, and with the exception of two articles the rest have summaries and conclusions. References and notes of varying lengths are included in each article. This book has been copublished simultaneously as Internet Reference Quarterly, 10(3/4), 2005. Although there are single articles written on Google and libraries, this is the first book-length treatment of the topic.
... This book is written by library professionals and aimed at the librarians in particular, but it will be useful to others who may be interested in knowing what libraries are up to in the age of Google. It is intended for library science educators and students, library administrators, publishers and university presses. It is well organized, well researched, and easily readable. Article titles are descriptive, allowing the reader to find what he needs by scanning the table of contents or by consulting the index. The only flaw in this book is the lack of summary or conclusions in a few articles. The book is in paperback and has 240 pages. This book is a significant contribution and I highly recommend it."

0.0017084682 = product of:
  0.0051254043 = sum of:
    0.0051254043 = product of:
      0.010250809 = sum of:
        0.010250809 = weight(_text_:of in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010250809 = score(doc=324,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.1496253 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Libraries are currently seeking to restructure their services and develop new cataloguing standards to position themselves on the web, which has become the main source of information and documents. The current upheaval within the profession is accompanied by the belief that libraries have a major role to play in identifying and supplying content due to their extensive high quality databases, which remain untapped despite efforts to increase catalog performance. They continue to rely on a strategy that has been proven successful since the mid-nineteenth century while seeking other models for their data. Today, they aim to exploit changes brought about by the web to improve content identification. The current intense debate on RDA implementation mirrors this desire for change. The debate is rooted in past efforts and yet tries to incite radical changes as it provides for interoperability from the creation of records through an object modeling in line with web standards and innovations. These innovations are presented through an historical perspective inspired by writings by librarians who are entrusted with helping in the development of bibliographic description standards.

0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=5181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents an outline of a cataloguing strategy that might be adopted for the with reference to how such a strategy is being implemented at the British Library. The first stage has involved cooperation with US libraries and future plans are linked to cooperation with European libraries. Such developments involve countries with different languages and different cataloguing cultures and so present many challenges. Discusses the skills required by staff needed to implement the cataloguing strategy

0.0013809383 = product of:
  0.004142815 = sum of:
    0.004142815 = product of:
      0.00828563 = sum of:
        0.00828563 = weight(_text_:of in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00828563 = score(doc=368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.120940685 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

After a long delay the final edition of RAK has been published. The old university libraries have suffered for years from using the Prussian Instructions which are obsolete and time-consuming; they have hesitated to give their old catalogues up but should do so as soon as possible. A new cataloguing policy is now needed, moving away from traditional practices that still govern even RAK towards simplified rules suitable for future developments such as use in centralised regional catalogues and in automated data processing. Simplified rules are proposed and discussed in relation to American and British minimal cataloguing, with suggestions for changes in basic terminology, general rules, main and subordinate entries, personal name and corporate body entries and subject headings

0.0013809383 = product of:
  0.004142815 = sum of:
    0.004142815 = product of:
      0.00828563 = sum of:
        0.00828563 = weight(_text_:of in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00828563 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.120940685 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Advances in computer and communication technology technology have had an important impact on OPACs. The client server architecture model, the Internet, protocols, and standards such as Z39.50 have resulted in newly designed interfaces which reduce syntactic and semantic knowledge required to conduct effective online searches. Experimental OPACs have been developed in an attempt to assist users in conceptual transformation of their information needs into searchable queries. These experiments are based primarily on determining users' behaviour at the OPAC terminal, which needs much further study. Other non traditional models for storing and retrieving information should be considered to create an intuitive OPAC