Search (167 results, page 2 of 9)

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 6030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=6030,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 6030, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 4470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=4470,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4470, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4470)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 6947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=6947,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 6947, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=475,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 475, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=637,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study Functional Requirements for Bibliograpbic Records (FRBR) was commissioned by IFLA and published in 1998. It defines the core functions of a catalogue (and bibliographic records) as a gateway to information. For that purpose an abstract entity-relationship model of a catalogue is proposed. The FRBR model is revolutionary. The (computer) catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a replica of the traditional card catalogue, but rather as a network of connected entities, enabling the user to perform seamlessly all the necessary functions. So far there has been some theoretical discussion of the model and some limited experiments, but there is a lack of research in how to implement this theoretical model in practice, in new-generation catalogues. In this paper some reactions to the model are analysed. The main focus is an consequences of the model for the OPAC interface design, particularly the searching functionality and display of results.

Type

a

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=2275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Location

A

Type

a

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=5243,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

By "recommending'' Furner refers to collaborative filtering where multiple user rankings of items are used to create a single new ranking for a user, or to a system itself generating rankings of items for its users. This would include document retrieval systems as a subset recommending systems in the second instance, but in the first would make document retrieval system and recommending system synonyms. Information seeking actions are classified either as evaluative (determining the worth of an item), recommending (expressing perceived worth), or informative (examining the content of an item). The task of the information retrieval system is to be to predict the particular ordering that the user would specify in a given context, given complete knowledge of the collection. Citations may be considered as the result of evaluative and recommending decisions by the author, and assigned index terms may be considered as the same sort of decisions by the indexer. The selection of relevant documents by a searcher from a list also involves evaluative and recommending decisions. This suggests that searchers should have the opportunity to bring multiple ranking techniques to bear.

Type

a

0.00252053 = product of:
  0.00504106 = sum of:
    0.00504106 = product of:
      0.01008212 = sum of:
        0.01008212 = weight(_text_:a in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01008212 = score(doc=2598,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the information needs of one user group, public library fiction readers, in order to reveal a design of an online community at the local level. Examination of user-generated metadata can reveal new approaches to information architecture. Design/methodology/approach - A literature review into behaviors of virtual communities; surveying public library readers regarding search behavior characteristics - the survey included a sample "tagging" exercise to determine whether public library communities could create meaningful metadata for retrieval purposes. Findings - The use of relevance as an indicator of tag quality is flawed: in a survey, public library readers "tagged" the novel The Da Vinci Code. The resulting collection of tags provided a richer description of the book than did the social book-related web site www.librarything.com. Tag collections can be broken down into different categories, each reflecting a different "facet" of the novel: character, plot, subject/topic, setting, and genre. Faceted structure to tags enables users to choose the context of the tag to the novel. Research limitations/implications - This research is relevant in the world of social networking sites, online communities, or any other such system where users generate descriptive metadata. Examination of such metadata can reveal facets, which can guide the architect/librarian in the design of a versatile architecture. Originality/value - This research resulted in a manifold design for a public-library-based online community that allowed for the full expression of users' information needs. This research introduces a faceted structure to current approaches for user-generated metadata, adding versatility to search terms.

Type

a

0.0024318986 = product of:
  0.004863797 = sum of:
    0.004863797 = product of:
      0.009727594 = sum of:
        0.009727594 = weight(_text_:a in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009727594 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0024128247 = product of:
  0.0048256493 = sum of:
    0.0048256493 = product of:
      0.009651299 = sum of:
        0.009651299 = weight(_text_:a in 988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009651299 = score(doc=988,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 988, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A transaction log analysis of the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) OPAC was conducted to identify query and search failure patterns with the goal of identifying areas of improvement for the system. One semester's worth of OPAC transaction logs were obtained and from these, 641,991 queries were extracted and used for this work. Issues investigated included query length, frequency and type of search options and Boolean operators used as well as their relationships with search failure. Among other findings, results indicate that a majority of the queries were simple, with short query lengths and a low usage of Boolean operators. Failure analysis revealed that on average, users had an almost equal chance of obtaining no records or at least one record to a submitted query. We propose enhancements and suggest future areas of work to improve the users' search experience with the NTU OPAC.

Type

a

0.0024032309 = product of:
  0.0048064617 = sum of:
    0.0048064617 = product of:
      0.0096129235 = sum of:
        0.0096129235 = weight(_text_:a in 2693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0096129235 = score(doc=2693,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2693, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The computer technology has considerable potential for better and more efficient management of knowledge and information sources. It is possible to provide easy, integrated and straightforward access to works of knowledge appearing in different expressions, editions, and manifestations (i.e., to bibliographic families). The online environment requires that the bibliographic record, as the surrogate for works of knowledge, should be restructured to provide users with a high-quality finding, identifying and collocating bibliographic tool. Unlike the existing flat structure, the multi-level structure of the Work Record would provide catalog users with the ability to discover if a work has been published/represented in different editions and manifestations and if there is any relationship among different works in a catalog or an the Internet. A similar structure for the Author Record would provide better access to different works by an author or about an author. A new structure for the bibliographic record is suggested through an analysis and categorization of the different relationships that exist in the bibliographic universe. A prototype catalogue developed based an the new structure (available an the Internet at: http://wilma.silas.unsw.edu.au/ students/rfattahi/super.html) illustrates the ability of providing multi-level, yet easy access to voluminous works and voluminous authors. Furthermore, the prototype catalog provides a clearer picture of bibliographic families and helps OPAC users decide an specific editions, manifestations, or items related to a specific work.

Type

a

0.0023790773 = product of:
  0.0047581545 = sum of:
    0.0047581545 = product of:
      0.009516309 = sum of:
        0.009516309 = weight(_text_:a in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009516309 = score(doc=4179,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper surveys card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) - online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards and more or less sophisticated mechanisms for browsing or searching. Solutions of this kind have been implemented by a number of libraries in various countries since the mid-1990s, mainly as inexpensive altematives to a full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. The article presents a Web page dedicated to CIPACs, identifies and describes four main categories of interface software for such catalogues, and provides a comparative overview of 50 CIPACs in 11 countries, looking at aspects such as geographical distribution, growth and size, software, number of catalogues, processing and index creation, navigation, image formats, and other features.

Type

a

0.0023546757 = product of:
  0.0047093513 = sum of:
    0.0047093513 = product of:
      0.009418703 = sum of:
        0.009418703 = weight(_text_:a in 6519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009418703 = score(doc=6519,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 6519, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6519)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Relevance has been a difficult concept to define, let alone measure. In this paper, a simple operational definition of relevance is proposed for a Web-based library catalog: whether or not during a search session the user saves, prints, mails, or downloads a citation. If one of those actions is performed, the session is considered relevant to the user. An analysis is presented illustrating the advantages and disadvantages of this definition. With this definition and good transaction logging, it is possible to ascertain the relevance of a session. This was done for 905,970 sessions conducted with the University of California's Melvyl online catalog. Next, a methodology was developed to try to predict the relevance of a session. A number of variables were defined that characterize a session, none of which used any demographic information about the user. The values of the variables were computed for the sessions. Principal components analysis was used to extract a new set of variables out of the original set. A stratified random sampling technique was used to form ten strata such that each new strata of 90,570 sessions contained the same proportion of relevant to nonrelevant sessions. Logistic regression was used to ascertain the regression coefficients for nine of the ten strata. Then, the coefficients were used to predict the relevance of the sessions in the missing strata. Overall, 17.85% of the sessions were determined to be relevant. The predicted number of relevant sessions for all ten strata was 11 %, a 6.85% difference. The authors believe that the methodology can be further refined and the prediction improved. This methodology could also have significant application in improving user searching and also in predicting electronic commerce buying decisions without the use of personal demographic data

Type

a

0.0023546757 = product of:
  0.0047093513 = sum of:
    0.0047093513 = product of:
      0.009418703 = sum of:
        0.009418703 = weight(_text_:a in 2665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009418703 = score(doc=2665,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 2665, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent projects in subject indexing and classification at K.U.Leuven University Library (Belgium) aim to give new Impulses to knowledge organization within the Institution. While in recent years a lot of attention was given, and with good reason, to the technical and administrative integration of e-sources, less energy was invested in organising the content of traditional and electronic collections. Nevertheless, presenting information sources in a content-structured way remains a core task of our University Library. This paper focuses an some experiments with subject search interfaces at K.U.Leuven University Library and situates them in a new policy for knowledge organization, which tries to find a balance between local and overall needs.

Content

1. One Institution, one catalogue, one solution? K.U.Leuven University Library has a decentralised structure consisting of several department libraries and one central library. It is part of LIBIS-net, which is the biggest network of academic libraries in Belgium. In this network, maintaining the balance between local and overall needs presents a constant challenge. Standards and overall rules in cataloguing are indispensable for permitting information exchange within and outside the network. On the other hand, overall solutions do not necessarily render the best service to the user of a specific library. This is especially the case for subject cataloguing. It is difficult, and perhaps unreasonable, to convince a department library to use a generally accepted thesaurus like LCSH, if the users are familiar with a local classification that is much better adapted to the collection. The DOBIS/LIBIS library system of K.U.Leuven offered a technical solution for the conflict between overall and local needs. The main part of the bibliographic description was stored an the overall level and was visible for the whole network. For subject cataloguing this was the case for UDC, LCSH and McSH. A UDC authority file was built containing UDC codes linked to descriptors in different languages (Dutch, English and French). The authority file was linked to the UDC codes used in the bibliographic descriptions. This permitted searching by either UDC codes or verbal terms. LCSH were regularly and automatically uploaded in the catalogue to enrich the bibliographic descriptions. Finally, our Library of Biomedical Sciences used McSH. Local information, like thesauri and classifications exclusively used in a specific library, were stored in local files ("local keywords") and could only be seen by that library (up to branch level). For many years, this local information posed no difficulties. 27.04% of all documents and 38.16% of those younger than 1992 have local keywords

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=1558,freq=48.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
              6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
                48.0 = termFreq=48.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"MOST INTEGRATED library systems, as they are currently configured and used, should be removed from public view. Before I say why, let me be clean that I think the integrated library system serves a very important, albeit limited, role. An integrated library system should serve as a key piece of the infrastructure of a library, handling such tasks as ma terials acquisition, cataloging (including holdings, of course), and circulation. The integrated library system should be a complete and accurate recording of a local library's holdings. It should not be presented to users as the primary system for locating information. It fails badly at that important job. - Lack of content- The central problem of almost any library catalog system is that it typically includes only information about the books and journals held by a parficular library. Most do not provide access to joumal article indexes, web search engines, or even selective web directories like the Librarians' Index to the Internet. If they do offen such access, it is only via links to these services. The library catalog is far from onestop shopping for information. Although we acknowledge that fact to each other, we still treat it as if it were the best place in the universe to begin a search. Most of us give the catalog a place of great prominente an our web pages. But Information for each book is limited to the author, title, and a few subject headings. Seldom can book reviews, jacket summaries, recommendations, or tables of contents be found-or anything at all to help users determine if they want the material. - Lack of coverage - Most catalogs do not allow patrons to discover even all the books that are available to them. If you're lucky, your catalog may cover the collections of those libraries with which you have close ties-such as a regional network. But that leaves out all those items that could be requested via interlibrary loan. As Steve Coffman pointed out in his "Building Earth's Largest Library" article, we must show our users the universe that is open to them, highlight the items most accessible, and provide an estimate of how long it would take to obtain other items. - Inability to increase coverage - Despite some well-meaning attempts to smash everything of interest into the library catalog, the fact remains that most integrated library systems expect MARC records and MARC records only. This means that whatever we want to put into the catalog must be described using MARC and AACR2 (see "Marc Must Die," LJ 10/15/02, p. 26ff.). This is a barrier to dramatically increasing the scope of a catalog system, even if we decided to do it. How would you, for example, use the Open Archives Initiative Harvesting Protocol to crawl the bibliographic records of remote repositories and make them searchable within your library catalog? It can't be dope, and it shouldn't. The library catalog should be a record of a given library's holdings. Period.
- User Interface hostility - Recently I used the Library catalogs of two public libraries, new products from two major library vendors. A link an one catalog said "Knowledge Portal," whatever that was supposed to mean. Clicking an it brought you to two choices: Z39.50 Bibliographic Sites and the World Wide Web. No public library user will have the faintest clue what Z39.50 is. The other catalog launched a Java applet that before long froze my web browser so badly I was forced to shut the program down. Pick a popular book and pretend you are a library patron. Choose three to five libraries at random from the lib web-cats site (pick catalogs that are not using your system) and attempt to find your book. Try as much as possible to see the system through the eyes of your patrons-a teenager, a retiree, or an older faculty member. You may not always like what you see. Now go back to your own system and try the same thing. - What should the public see? - Our users deserve an information system that helps them find all different kinds of resources-books, articles, web pages, working papers in institutional repositories-and gives them the tools to focus in an what they want. This is not, and should not be, the library catalog. It must communicate with the catalog, but it will also need to interface with other information systems, such as vendor databases and web search engines. What will such a tool look like? We are seeing the beginnings of such a tool in the current offerings of cross-database search tools from a few vendors (see "Cross-Database Search," LJ 10/15/01, p. 29ff). We are in the early stages of developing the kind of robust, userfriendly tool that will be required before we can pull our catalogs from public view. Meanwhile, we can begin by making what we have easier to understand and use."

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=688,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

At the end of 2005, impending digitization efforts and several developments related to the creation of access and discovery tools for informational and cultural objects resulted in a series of responses that continue to ripple throughout the library, museum and archive communities. These developments have broad implications for all three communities because of the goals shared by each in the creation of description, control and enhanced access to informational and cultural objects. This position paper will consider new implementations of faceted navigation and browsing features in online catalogs. It is also a response to challenges to develop interwoven approaches to the study of information seeking and the design and implementation of search and discovery systems. Urgently needed during this time of experimentation, development and implementation is a framework for system evaluation and critical analysis of needed and missing features that is grounded in traditional principles, borne out by practice. Such a framework could extend feature analysis protocols established during the early years of online catalog development.

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=5584,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on a model and patterns of use of a library catalog that can be accessed through the Internet. Three categories of users are identified. individuals who perform a search of the catalog, tourists who look only at opening pages of the library catalog's site, and Web spiders that come to the site to obtain pages for indexing the Web. A number of types of use activities are also identified, and can be grouped with the presearch phase (which takes place before any searching begins): the search phase, the display phase (in which users display the results of their search), and phases in which users make errors, ask the system for help or assistance, and take other actions. An empirical investigation of patterns of use of a university Web-based library catalog was conducted for 479 days. During that period, the characteristics of about 2.5 million sessions were recorded and analyzed, and usage trends were identified. Of the total, 62% of the sessions were for users who performed a search, 27% were from spiders, and 11% were for tourists. During the study period, the average search session lasted about 5 minutes when the study began and had increased to about 10 minutes 16 months later. An average search consisted of about 1.5 presearch actions lasting about 25 seconds, about 5.3 display actions, and 2.5 searches per session. The latter two categories are in the range of 35-37 seconds per session each. There were major differences in usage (number of searches, search time, number of display actions, and display time), depending upon the database accessed

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 2549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=2549,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2549, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims at providing a robust, user-friendly and efficient navigation procedure in an online library catalog that is based on semantic information encapsulated within subject headings. Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes an interactive navigation procedure inside an online library catalog based on semantic information. The proposed approach is presented through a web-based, prototype application following the most recent trends of the semantic web such as AJAX technology and the web ontology language - OWL for encoding semantics. Findings - According to the proposed method, a GUI interface exposes the hierarchy of the subject headings employed within an OPAC, as well as all stated relations between such headings, as links that the user can follow, effectively traversing the ontology and formulating at the same time the actual query to the underlying OPAC. This act of interactive navigation through the library's assets aids searchers in accurately formulating their queries, by offering broader or narrower concepts for selection or indicating alternative or related concepts they might be initially unaware of. The augmented exposition of inter-relations between concepts provides multiple paths for information retrieval and enables searchers to fulfill their information needs in a faster, more efficient and intuitive manner. Practical implications - The paper includes implications for the development of modern, semantic web applications focused on the library domain. The novel approach of visualizing subject headings could be further extended to visualize a number of other conceptualizations of the library domain. Originality/value - This paper fulfils an identified need to take advantage of the "hidden knowledge" existing within the library domain but, for a number of reasons, is never exposed to the library users.

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=3862,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article are compared traditional OPAC systems, enriched OPAC, social OPAC and social cataloguing systems.the aim is to underline new theoretical trends and to offer a taxonomic outline of such tools, according to the interaction level granted to users and to the chance to manage user's generated contents in the point of view of the application of web 2.0 tendecies to libraries, in the library 2.0. At the end, a brief review of softwares, both open source and not, that seem promising for this future application.

Type

a