Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01800845 = product of:
  0.0360169 = sum of:
    0.0360169 = product of:
      0.0720338 = sum of:
        0.0720338 = weight(_text_:systems in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0720338 = score(doc=1193,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4491705 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes two approaches for searching heterogeneous resources, which are explained as they are used in two corresponding existing systems-RIRS (Resource Integration Retrieval System) and HRUSP (Heterogeneous Resource Union Search Platform). On analyzing the existing systems, a possible framework-the MUSP (Multimetadata-Based Union Search Platform) is presented. Libraries now face a dilemma. On one hand, libraries subscribe to many types of database retrieval systems that are produced by various providers. The libraries build their data and information systems independently. This results in highly heterogeneous and distributed systems at the technical level (e.g., different operating systems and user interfaces) and at the conceptual level (e.g., the same objects are named using different terms). On the other hand, end users want to access all these heterogeneous data via a union interface, without having to know the structure of each information system or the different retrieval methods used by the systems. Libraries must achieve a harmony between information providers and users. In order to bridge the gap between the service providers and the users, it would seem that all source databases would need to be rebuilt according to a uniform data structure and query language, but this seems impossible. Fortunately, however, libraries and information and technology providers are now making an effort to find a middle course that meets the requirements of both data providers and users. They are doing this through resource integration.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=1230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A Virtual union catalog is a possible alternative to the centralized database of distributed resources found in many library systems. Such a catalog would not be maintained in a single location but would be created in real time by searching each local campus or affiliate library's catalog through the Z39.50 protocol. This would eliminate the redundancy of record storage as well as the expense of loading and maintaining access to the central catalog. This article describes a test implementation of a virtual union catalog for the University of California system. It describes some of the differences between the virtual catalog and the existing, centralized union catalog (MELVYL). The research described in the paper suggests enhancements that must be made if the virtual union catalog is to become a reasonable service alternative to the MELVYL® catalog.