Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"OPAC"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Cathro, W.: New frameworks for resource discovery and delivery : the changing role of the catalogue (2006) 0.01
    0.014115169 = product of:
      0.056460675 = sum of:
        0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056460675 = score(doc=6107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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
  2. Calhoun, K.: ¬The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools : Prepared for the Library of Congress (2006) 0.01
    0.007904778 = product of:
      0.031619113 = sum of:
        0.031619113 = product of:
          0.063238226 = sum of:
            0.063238226 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.063238226 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04694356 = queryNorm
                0.2439969 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  3. Blosser, J.; Michaelson, R.; Routh. R.; Xia, P.: Defining the landscape of Web resources : Concluding Report of the BAER Web Resources Sub-Group (2000) 0.00
    0.003180102 = product of:
      0.012720408 = sum of:
        0.012720408 = product of:
          0.025440816 = sum of:
            0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025440816 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04694356 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    21. 4.2002 10:22:31
  4. Lewandowski, D.: How can library materials be ranked in the OPAC? (2009) 0.00
    0.0020808585 = product of:
      0.008323434 = sum of:
        0.008323434 = product of:
          0.033293735 = sum of:
            0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033293735 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04694356 = queryNorm
                0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  5. Mann, T.: ¬The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools. Final report. March 17, 2006. Prepared for the Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun : A critical review (2006) 0.00
    0.0017656671 = product of:
      0.0070626684 = sum of:
        0.0070626684 = product of:
          0.028250674 = sum of:
            0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028250674 = score(doc=5012,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04694356 = queryNorm
                0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  6. Whitney , C.; Schiff, L.: ¬The Melvyl Recommender Project : developing library recommendation services (2006) 0.00
    0.0017656671 = product of:
      0.0070626684 = sum of:
        0.0070626684 = product of:
          0.028250674 = sum of:
            0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028250674 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04694356 = queryNorm
                0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.