Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

0.04832534 = product of:
  0.07248801 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=6107,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
    0.053627502 = product of:
      0.107255004 = sum of:
        0.107255004 = weight(_text_:demand in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107255004 = score(doc=6107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.3445655 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.03733623 = product of:
  0.05600434 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=156,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Subject access in the OPAC, as discussed in this article, is predicated on two different kinds of searching: subject (authority, alphabetic, or controlled vocabulary searching) or keyword (uncontrolled, free text, natural language vocabulary). The literature has focused on demonstrating that both approaches are needed, but very few authors address the need to integrate keyword into authority searching. The article discusses this difference and compares, with a query on the term garbage, search results in two online catalogs, one that performs keyword searches through the authority file and one where only bibliographic records are included in keyword searches.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.028611436 = product of:
  0.042917155 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=164,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The growth and use of aggregator databases have presented libraries with both new opportunities for collection enhancement and new challenges of bibliographic control. How to integrate full-text electronic journal titles in unstable aggregator databases into a library's OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) has been an especially taxing matter for libraries. This article describes the Hong Kong Baptist University Library's effort to integrate full-text electronic journal titles from three large, unstable aggregator databases into its INNOPAC-based OPAC. The library's electronic journal computer program (EJCOP) does this in a simple, direct, consistent, and accurate manner and addresses some of the issues elaborated in the January 2000 Final Report of the Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases of the Standing Committee on Automation of the Library of Congress Program for Cooperative Cataloging.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02822417 = product of:
  0.042336255 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Fac-Back-OPAC is a faceted back­ up OPAC. This advanced catalog offers features that compare favorably with the traditional catalogs for today's library systems. Fac-Back-OPAC represents the convergence of two prominent trends in library tools: the decoupling of discovery tools from the traditional integrated library system and the use of readily available open source components to rapidly produce leading-edge technology for meeting patron and library needs. Built on code that was originally developed by Casey Durfee in February 2007, Fac-Back-OPAC is available for no cost under an open source license to any library that wants to offer an advanced search interface or a backup catalog for its patrons.

Date

17. 8.2008 11:22:47

0.027833907 = product of:
  0.04175086 = sum of:
    0.028227827 = weight(_text_:on in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028227827 = score(doc=168,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25717056 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.013523032 = product of:
      0.027046064 = sum of:
        0.027046064 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027046064 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, 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=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The effect that content and layout of bibliographic displays had on the ability of end-users to process catalog information was tested using a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design. Participants were asked to perform two related tasks during the course of the experiment. In the first task, they were asked to select a set of items that they would examine further for a hypothetical paper they must write, using a simulated online catalog to make their assessments of relevance. In the second task, they were asked to examine 20 bibliographic records, decide whether they would choose to examine these items further on the shelf, and identify the data elements that they used to formulate their relevance decision. One group viewed bibliographic records on an interface similar to current online catalogs, one that used data labels and contained data elements commonly found. A second group viewed these records on an interface in which the labels had been removed, but the data elements were the same as those in the first. The third group viewed these records on a labeled display that included enhanced data elements on the brief record display. The final group viewed these records with the same brief record data elements as the third group, but with the labels removed, using ISBD and AACR2 punctuation standards. For the first task, participants using enhanced brief screen interfaces viewed more brief screens and fewer full screens than their counterparts. Screen durations for the second 10 screens were found to have dropped from those of the first 10 screens. Statistical analyses comparing demographic variables to the screen frequencies uncovered many significant differences. Participants using the enhanced-content interfaces made fewer selections from index and full screens, and more selections from brief screens. For the second task, participants who used enhanced-content interfaces were able to make some sort of relevance judgment more frequently than those who used standard-content interfaces.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.023842867 = product of:
  0.0357643 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=731,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.01690379 = product of:
      0.03380758 = sum of:
        0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03380758 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

0.02324084 = product of:
  0.03486126 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=1447,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.013523032 = product of:
      0.027046064 = sum of:
        0.027046064 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027046064 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.016690006 = product of:
  0.025035009 = sum of:
    0.013202356 = weight(_text_:on in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013202356 = score(doc=1429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.120280504 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
    0.011832653 = product of:
      0.023665305 = sum of:
        0.023665305 = weight(_text_:22 in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023665305 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Enthält Beiträge von: FUGMANN, R.: Obstacles to progress in mechanized subject access and the necessity of a paradigm change; TELL, B.: On MARC and natural text searching: a review of Pauline Cochrane's inspirational thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters; KING, D.W.: Blazing new trails: in celebration of an audacious career; FIDEL, R.: The user-centered approach; SMITH, L.: Subject access in interdisciplinary research; DRABENSTOTT, K.M.: Web search strategies; LAM, V.-T.: Enhancing subject access to monographs in Online Public Access Catalogs: table of contents added to bibliographic records; JOHNSON, E.H.: Objects for distributed heterogeneous information retrieval

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.016690006 = product of:
  0.025035009 = sum of:
    0.013202356 = weight(_text_:on in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013202356 = score(doc=2509,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.120280504 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.011832653 = product of:
      0.023665305 = sum of:
        0.023665305 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023665305 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.014225486 = product of:
  0.042676456 = sum of:
    0.042676456 = weight(_text_:on in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042676456 = score(doc=2593,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=5624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 5368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=5368,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 5368, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5368)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article discusses how samples of records for laboratory IR experiments on OPACs can be constructed so that results obtained from different experiments can be compared. The literature on laboratory IR experiments seems to indicate that the retrieval effectiveness (recall and precision) is affected by the way the samples of records for such experiments are generated. Especially the amount of records and the subject area coverage of the records seems to affect the retrieval effectiveness. This article contains suggestions for the construction of samples for laboratory IR experiments on OPACs and demonstrates that the retrieval effectiveness is affected by different sample size and composition.

0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 2993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=2993,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 2993, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2993)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There has been a flurry of constructive discussion and debate about the future of cataloging and the catalog, from FRBR and RDA on cataloging rules (with a focus on content) to next-generation discovery interfaces for the catalog (with a focus on carrier). A topic that is not receiving as much attention in the midst of these discussions is the scope of the library catalog. This article offers an opinion on the scope of the catalog in a research library, and the role of the catalogers in this time of transition. The article will also elicit some practical approaches that catalogers can take to reposition the catalog for improved user-access and resource discovery.

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 4810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=4810,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 4810, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4810)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on a qualitative study exploring: (1) strategies and behaviors of public library users during interaction with an OPAC; and (2) users' confidence in finding needed information on-line. Questionnaires, interviews, and observations were employed to gather data from 32 public library users. the results found search behaviors, confidence, and other feelings varied, based on 3 types of searches: unknown-item searches; area searches; and known-item searches. Term generation was the most important factor in unknown-item search strategies. Speed and convenience palyed a role in area searches, and simplicity characterized known-item searches. Of the 3 types, unknown-item searchers experienced the most frustration and doubt; known-item searchers the most disappointment; and area searchers the most confidence and contentment. Knowledge of these differences may prove helpful for librarians and interface designers

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 6857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=6857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 6857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6857)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium held in Washington, DC at the Library of Congress, November 2000

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=4130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 4130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4130)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 6745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=6745,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 6745, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6745)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It's clear that today's typical library users are Web-sawy and have very high expectations. Librarians need to offer interfaces on Web sites that match or exceed those found on the commercial Web. Paired with high-quality content that's selected and created by librarians, a state-of-the-art Web interface is a compelling destination for users.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=2597,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usability of a web-based OPAC (WebPAC) user interface at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). It also looks at the applicability of heuristic evaluation in designing a user-centered WebPAC interface. Design/methodology/approach - Based on Nielsen's ten usability heuristic principles, the study focuses on three heuristics only, i.e. aesthetic and minimalist design, match between interface and the real world, and visibility of interface status. Findings - Results of the study found that the WebPAC interface conforms to at least 70 percent usability properties prescribed. Usability problems violated in the interface were identified. Practical implications - The study suggests that heuristic evaluation is applicable in libraries to asses the usability of user interface for online catalogs. Originality/value - Heuristic evaluation could assist libraries in designing user-centered interface for online catalogs.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Special Sections on Accessibility and OPAC"

0.009015355 = product of:
  0.027046064 = sum of:
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 2594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=2594,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2594, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2594)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to determine whether a faceted OPAC interface offers improvements to information discovery in scholarly research. Design/methodology/approach - The 5.2 million records of an entire library catalog were loaded into a faceted navigation interface and an attractive search term suggestion tool. Humanities PhD students at the dissertation level and familiar with this collection were observed while using this interface to continue their research into the literature on their dissertation topic. Findings - From a group of 12 subjects, nine reported finding materials that they had not found in their previous use of the traditional catalog interface. Research limitations/implications - No attempt is made to isolate the effects of relevance ranking on discovery from those of faceted navigation or the search term suggestions. The differences between the circumstances of scholars who did and did not find previously undiscovered materials are not examined. Practical implications - Faceted interface and search term suggestion in a library catalog may enable those scholars who are highly dependent on library materials to find materials that would remain hidden in a traditional library catalog. Originality/value - This article considers whether faceted navigation increases the range of relevant materials that scholars discover, and is of interest to libraries which are considering adding faceted navigation and other features to their catalog interface.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Special Sections on Accessibility and OPAC"