Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

0.049372107 = product of:
  0.09874421 = sum of:
    0.09874421 = sum of:
      0.06400974 = weight(_text_:report in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06400974 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05127382 = queryNorm
          0.26261088 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
      0.034734476 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034734476 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05127382 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.038405843 = product of:
  0.076811686 = sum of:
    0.076811686 = product of:
      0.15362337 = sum of:
        0.15362337 = weight(_text_:report in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15362337 = score(doc=5012,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.6302661 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgement or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model - and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.

Object

Calhoun report

0.035782535 = product of:
  0.07156507 = sum of:
    0.07156507 = product of:
      0.14313014 = sum of:
        0.14313014 = weight(_text_:report in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14313014 = score(doc=3225,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.5872158 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.

0.03200487 = product of:
  0.06400974 = sum of:
    0.06400974 = product of:
      0.12801948 = sum of:
        0.12801948 = weight(_text_:report in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12801948 = score(doc=2627,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.52522177 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.

Issue

Final report. Phase I: Descriptive cataloging.

0.03135824 = product of:
  0.06271648 = sum of:
    0.06271648 = product of:
      0.12543295 = sum of:
        0.12543295 = weight(_text_:report in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12543295 = score(doc=5013,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.5146101 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

Issue

Final report, March 17, 2006.

Object

Calhoun report

Source

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf

0.02778758 = product of:
  0.05557516 = sum of:
    0.05557516 = product of:
      0.11115032 = sum of:
        0.11115032 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11115032 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.02778758 = product of:
  0.05557516 = sum of:
    0.05557516 = product of:
      0.11115032 = sum of:
        0.11115032 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11115032 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.027717032 = product of:
  0.055434063 = sum of:
    0.055434063 = product of:
      0.110868126 = sum of:
        0.110868126 = weight(_text_:report in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110868126 = score(doc=6107,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.4548554 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is currently a lively debate about the role of the library catalogue and its relationship to other resource discovery tools. An example of this debate is the recent publication of a report commissioned by the Library of Congress on "the changing nature of the catalogue" As part of this debate, the role of union catalogues is also being re-examined. Some commentators have suggested that union catalogues, by virtue of their size, can aggregate both supply and demand, thus increasing the chance that a relatively little-used resource will be discovered by somebody for whom it is relevant. During the past year, the National Library of Australia (NLA) has been considering the future of its catalogue and its role in the resource discovery and delivery process. The review was prompted, in part, by the redevelopment of the Australian union catalogue and its exposure on the web as a free public service, badged as Libraries Australia. The NLA examined the enablers and inhibitors to proposition "that it replace its catalogue with Libraries Australia, as the primary database to be searched by users". Flowing from this review, the NLA is aiming to undertake a number of tasks to move in the medium to long term towards a scenario in which it could deprecate its local catalogue. Bezug zum Calhoun-Report

Object

Calhoun report

0.022403408 = product of:
  0.044806816 = sum of:
    0.044806816 = product of:
      0.08961363 = sum of:
        0.08961363 = weight(_text_:report in 2439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08961363 = score(doc=2439,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.36765522 = fieldWeight in 2439, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

British Library research and innovation report; 53

0.022403408 = product of:
  0.044806816 = sum of:
    0.044806816 = product of:
      0.08961363 = sum of:
        0.08961363 = weight(_text_:report in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08961363 = score(doc=5568,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.36765522 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As of spring semester 2010, Georgia Southern University began using a VuFind implementation as the default access to the library catalogue on the library Web page while maintaining a secondary link to the traditional Voyager "classic" catalogue. VuFind is an open-source product that has been adopted and adapted by all the state universities and colleges in the state of Georgia. For approximately ten years, Georgia libraries have used Voyager as their catalogue, and it remains available to users as the "classic" search option. This report examines the local VuFind implementation compared to the more traditional Voyager implementation, emphasizing the differences in the searching capabilities of each.

0.020840684 = product of:
  0.041681368 = sum of:
    0.041681368 = product of:
      0.083362736 = sum of:
        0.083362736 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083362736 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.020840684 = product of:
  0.041681368 = sum of:
    0.041681368 = product of:
      0.083362736 = sum of:
        0.083362736 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083362736 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.020840684 = product of:
  0.041681368 = sum of:
    0.041681368 = product of:
      0.083362736 = sum of:
        0.083362736 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083362736 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, 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=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.019202922 = product of:
  0.038405843 = sum of:
    0.038405843 = product of:
      0.076811686 = sum of:
        0.076811686 = weight(_text_:report in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076811686 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.31513304 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die folgenden Beiträge: TILLETT, B.B.: Catalog it once for all: a history of cooperative cataloging in the United States prior to 1967 (before MARC); ANDERSON, G.: Symmetry and extrapolation: passion and precision - cooperative cataloging at the beginning of the 21st century; BARTLEY, L.K.: The CONSER model: a personal view; HARRIMAN, R.: The news in review: the United States newspaper program; JOACHIM, M.D.: Cooperative cataloging of microform sets; RIEMER, J.J. u. K. MORGENROTH: Hang together or hang separately: the cooperative authority work component of NACO; WIGGINS, B.: The national coordinated cataloging program; ROSENBLATT, S.: The national coordinated cataloging program from the participant's perspective; HOLLEY, R.P.: Cooperative cataloging outside North America: status report 1993; THOMAS, S.E. u. J.A. YOUNGER: Cooperative cataloging: a vision for the future

0.019202922 = product of:
  0.038405843 = sum of:
    0.038405843 = product of:
      0.076811686 = sum of:
        0.076811686 = weight(_text_:report in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076811686 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.31513304 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Als eines der Ergebnisse der 2007 zwischen BVB und KOBV geschlossenen strategischen Allianz konnte am 12. September 2011 Mable+, eine Java-gestützte OpenSource-Software zur automatischen Daten- und Fehleranalyse von Bibliothekskatalogen, veröffentlicht werden. Basierend auf dem MAB-Datenaustauschformat ermöglicht Mable+ die formale Prüfung von Katalogdaten verbunden mit einer statistischen Auswertung über die Verteilung der Felder. Dazu benötigt es einen MAB-Abzug des Katalogs im MAB2-Bandformat mit MAB2-Zeichensatz. Dieses Datenpaket wird innerhalb weniger Minuten analysiert. Als Ergebnis erhält man einen Report mit einer allgemeinen Statistik zu den geprüften Datensätzen (Verteilung der Satztypen, Anzahl der MAB-Felder, u.a.), sowie eine Liste gefundener Fehler. Die Software wurde bereits bei der Migration der Katalogdaten aller KOBV-Bibliotheken in den B3Kat erfolgreich eingesetzt. Auf der Projekt-Webseite http://mable.kobv.de/ findet man allgemeine Informationen sowie diverse Anleitungen zur Nutzung des Programms. Die Software kann man sich unter http://mable.kobv.de/download.html herunterladen. Derzeit wird ein weiterführendes Konzept zur Nutzung und Modifizierung der Software entwickelt.

0.019202922 = product of:
  0.038405843 = sum of:
    0.038405843 = product of:
      0.076811686 = sum of:
        0.076811686 = weight(_text_:report in 5556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076811686 = score(doc=5556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.31513304 = fieldWeight in 5556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, 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.

0.019202922 = product of:
  0.038405843 = sum of:
    0.038405843 = product of:
      0.076811686 = sum of:
        0.076811686 = weight(_text_:report in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076811686 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.31513304 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To improve resource discovery and retrieval, libraries have implemented new discovery services, such as next generation catalogues, federated search, and Web-scale discovery, in addition to their traditional integrated library systems. These new discovery services greatly improve the user experience by utilizing existing cataloguing records housed within the library system or in combination with metadata from other sources, both in and outside of libraries. However, to maximize the functionality of these discovery services, libraries must reexamine current cataloguing practices and the way libraries control the bibliographic description to better serve the user's needs. This report discusses how new discovery services use the cataloguing records and the challenges that libraries encounter in bibliographic control to work with new discovery services, including the quality of cataloguing records, granular levels of bibliographic description, and integration of user-generated metadata into the cataloguing records. Each of these aspects requires further discussion.

0.019202922 = product of:
  0.038405843 = sum of:
    0.038405843 = product of:
      0.076811686 = sum of:
        0.076811686 = weight(_text_:report in 5582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076811686 = score(doc=5582,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.31513304 = fieldWeight in 5582, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

If the public library catalogue is to continue to have relevance to its users, it needs to move beyond its current inventory model, where all content is designed and controlled by library staff and client interaction with catalogue content is limited, to a social catalogue, where users can contribute to, and interact with information and with each other. The goal of this report is to present the results of an analysis of four months worth of log analysis of two social discovery systems used in two Canadian public libraries to examine: (a) how public library users interact with social discovery systems; (b) how usage compares between the two social discovery systems; and (c) whether the use of the features in social discovery systems is consistent over time. Results suggest that clients are making limited use of the social features of the system that allow them to interact with the catalogue records and with one another.

0.017367238 = product of:
  0.034734476 = sum of:
    0.034734476 = product of:
      0.06946895 = sum of:
        0.06946895 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06946895 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.017367238 = product of:
  0.034734476 = sum of:
    0.034734476 = product of:
      0.06946895 = sum of:
        0.06946895 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06946895 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, 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=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22