Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022449467 = product of:
  0.0673484 = sum of:
    0.055312827 = weight(_text_:web in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055312827 = score(doc=1447,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.38159183 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.012035574 = product of:
      0.024071148 = sum of:
        0.024071148 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024071148 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.01932706 = product of:
  0.05798118 = sum of:
    0.020906283 = weight(_text_:web in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020906283 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
    0.037074894 = weight(_text_:computer in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037074894 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.22840683 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.012070249 = product of:
  0.07242149 = sum of:
    0.07242149 = weight(_text_:web in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242149 = score(doc=2593,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this lecture, Dr. Bates summarizes the research she recently conducted in her role as a Principal Investigator for the Library of Congress Action Plan on Bibliographic Control of Web Resources. Her investigations focused on three particular topics: User access vocabulary, Links among bibliographic families, and Staging of access to resources in the interface. From each of these perspectives, she shares her recommendations on how to achieve enhanced access to and display of records for selected Web resources across multiple systems.

Footnote

Vortrag, anläßlich: Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium: confronting the challenges of networked resources and the Web

0.006968761 = product of:
  0.041812565 = sum of:
    0.041812565 = weight(_text_:web in 4426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041812565 = score(doc=4426,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4426, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4426)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Wissen Sie, wie sich zukünftig Bibliografien, Kataloge und OPACs bedienen lassen? Wenn wir über die Zukunft von Bibliografien, Katalogen und OPACs nachdenken, denken wir dann zunächst an Medien verzeichnisse oder an offene, kommunikative Webportale, die es jedem ermöglichen, sich nach Art des Web 2.0 an der Erfassung der bibliografischen Daten zu beteiligen? Wenn wir mediale Internet angebote des Web 2.0 genauer betrachtet, bieten diese meh als lediglich die Verzeichnung von Medien. Es zeigt sich, dass angesichts aktueller Entwicklungen in Richtung Web 2.0 die Frage neu gestellt werden sollte, in welcher Form zukünftig mediografische Portale ihren Nutzen haben könnten. Beispielsweise könnte ein OPAC 2.0 jedem Interessenten einen individuellen Zugang zu einem Informationsraum offerieren, der sich funktionell ganz den eigenen Bedürfnissen und Wünschen des Bibliotheksnutzers anpasst und nicht nur Zugang zu Informationen ermöglicht, sondern auch vollmedialen Zugriff, inhaltliche Verweisfunktionen, erweiterten Service sowie Kommunikationsfunktionen. Die Antwort lautet also, dass Archive und Bibliotheken mehr über mediografische Portale nachden ken sollten und nicht über Bibliografien, Kataloge und OPACs! Eine darauf folgend wichtige Frage ist, ob diese Portale sowohl inhaltlich als auch funktionell nicht nur unseren Archiv und Bibliotheksnutzern mehr Service bieten, sondern auch einen höheren Zweck für Archive und Bibliotheken selbst darstellen? Die Online Techniken des Web 2.0 und dessen Portale offerieren virtuelle Welten und neue Möglichkeiten zum Aktiv und Produktivsein, also insgesamt zum Proaktivsein unserer Nutzer. Die Betrachtung solcher Internetangebote zeigt, dass sich mediografische Angebote bereits in einer Entwicklung befinden. Doch wenn es eine solche Entwicklung gibt, muss überlegt werden, wie Archive und Bibliotheken sich hierbei einbringen können. Somit zeichnet sich bei diesem Thema eine Brisanz ab. Denn zu bedenken ist, dass mediografische Daten bereits in Rechercheergebnissen bei Online-Datenbanken, Internet Suchmaschinen, Online Enzyklopädien oder anderen Angeboten eine Rolle spielen.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=6107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=2810,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Some Online Public Access Catalogues offer a ranking component. However, ranking there is merely text-based and is doomed to fail due to limited text in bibliographic data. The main assumption for the talk is that we are in a situation where the appropriate ranking factors for OPACs should be defined, while the implementation is no major problem. We must define what we want, and not so much focus on the technical work. Some deep thinking is necessary on the "perfect results set" and how we can achieve it through ranking. The talk presents a set of potential ranking factors and clustering possibilities for further discussion. A look at commercial Web search engines could provide us with ideas how ranking can be improved with additional factors. Search engines are way beyond pure text-based ranking and apply ranking factors in the groups like popularity, freshness, personalisation, etc. The talk describes the main factors used in search engines and how derivatives of these could be used for libraries' purposes. The goal of ranking is to provide the user with the best-suitable results on top of the results list. How can this goal be achieved with the library catalogue and also concerning the library's different collections and databases? The assumption is that ranking of such materials is a complex problem and is yet nowhere near solved. Libraries should focus on ranking to improve user experience.

0.0030488332 = product of:
  0.018292999 = sum of:
    0.018292999 = weight(_text_:web in 1703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018292999 = score(doc=1703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 1703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1703)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: ABI-Technik 21(2002) H.3, S.292 (E. Pietzsch): "Otto C. Oberhauser hat mit seiner Diplomarbeit eine beeindruckende Analyse digitalisierter Zettelkataloge (CIPACs) vorgelegt. Die Arbeit wartet mit einer Fülle von Daten und Statistiken auf, wie sie bislang nicht vorgelegen haben. BibliothekarInnen, die sich mit der Digitalisierung von Katalogen tragen, finden darin eine einzigartige Vorlage zur Entscheidungsfindung. Nach einem einführenden Kapitel bringt Oberhauser zunächst einen Überblick über eine Auswahl weltweit verfügbarer CIPACs, deren Indexierungsmethode (Binäre Suche, partielle Indexierung, Suche in OCR-Daten) und stellt vergleichende Betrachtungen über geographische Verteilung, Größe, Software, Navigation und andere Eigenschaften an. Anschließend beschreibt und analysiert er Implementierungsprobleme, beginnend bei Gründen, die zur Digitalisierung führen können: Kosten, Umsetzungsdauer, Zugriffsverbesserung, Stellplatzersparnis. Er fährt fort mit technischen Aspekten wie Scannen und Qualitätskontrolle, Image Standards, OCR, manueller Nacharbeit, Servertechnologie. Dabei geht er auch auf die eher hinderlichen Eigenschaften älterer Kataloge ein sowie auf die Präsentation im Web und die Anbindung an vorhandene Opacs. Einem wichtigen Aspekt, nämlich der Beurteilung durch die wichtigste Zielgruppe, die BibliotheksbenutzerInnen, hat Oberhauser eine eigene Feldforschung gewidmet, deren Ergebnisse er im letzten Kapitel eingehend analysiert. Anhänge über die Art der Datenerhebung und Einzelbeschreibung vieler Kataloge runden die Arbeit ab. Insgesamt kann ich die Arbeit nur als die eindrucksvollste Sammlung von Daten, Statistiken und Analysen zum Thema CIPACs bezeichnen, die mir bislang begegnet ist. Auf einen schön herausgearbeiteten Einzelaspekt, nämlich die weitgehende Zersplitterung bei den eingesetzten Softwaresystemen, will ich besonders eingehen: Derzeit können wir grob zwischen Komplettlösungen (eine beauftragte Firma führt als Generalunternehmung sämtliche Aufgaben von der Digitalisierung bis zur Ablieferung der fertigen Anwendung aus) und geteilten Lösungen (die Digitalisierung wird getrennt von der Indexierung und der Softwareerstellung vergeben bzw. im eigenen Hause vorgenommen) unterscheiden. Letztere setzen ein Projektmanagement im Hause voraus. Gerade die Softwareerstellung im eigenen Haus aber kann zu Lösungen führen, die kommerziellen Angeboten keineswegs nachstehen. Schade ist nur, daß die vielfältigen Eigenentwicklungen bislang noch nicht zu Initiativen geführt haben, die, ähnlich wie bei Public Domain Software, eine "optimale", kostengünstige und weithin akzeptierte Softwarelösung zum Ziel haben. Einige kritische Anmerkungen sollen dennoch nicht unerwähnt bleiben. Beispielsweise fehlt eine Differenzierung zwischen "Reiterkarten"-Systemen, d.h. solchen mit Indexierung jeder 20. oder 50. Karte, und Systemen mit vollständiger Indexierung sämtlicher Kartenköpfe, führt doch diese weitreichende Designentscheidung zu erheblichen Kostenverschiebungen zwischen Katalogerstellung und späterer Benutzung. Auch bei den statistischen Auswertungen der Feldforschung hätte ich mir eine feinere Differenzierung nach Typ des CIPAC oder nach Bibliothek gewünscht. So haben beispielsweise mehr als die Hälfte der befragten BenutzerInnen angegeben, die Bedienung des CIPAC sei zunächst schwer verständlich oder seine Benutzung sei zeitaufwendig gewesen. Offen beibt jedoch, ob es Unterschiede zwischen den verschiedenen Realisierungstypen gibt.