Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03481982 = product of:
  0.06963964 = sum of:
    0.06963964 = product of:
      0.13927928 = sum of:
        0.13927928 = weight(_text_:r.l in 14) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13927928 = score(doc=14,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.39344835 = fieldWeight in 14, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=14)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: ABID, A.: CD-ROM and access to information in the south; SEVER, S.: CD-ROM and bridging of cultural and technological gaps in developing countries; MITCHELL, J.: Electronic publishing developments and opportunities from OCLC; TAYLOR, H.: Science Citation Index print and CD: the best of both worlds from ISI; DAHLGREN, A.C.: The forgiving building revisited; KOCH, H.-A.: How will CD-ROM affect the cooperation within library networks? SCHNELLING, H.: Beyond online? Interactive public access to library files via CD-ROM; NEUBAUER, K.W.: Electronic library? The consequences of micros on data processing systems in libraries in the age of CD-ROM; PEARSON, E.M.: The impact of CD-ROM on library operations: to buy or to make - one library's experience producing a catalogue on CD-ROM; BROWN, D.J.: ADONIS - The strategic needs of publishers; BRAID, J.A.: ADONIS - from myth to reality; KORWITZ, U.: The ADONIS project: first experiences in the central library of medicine, Cologne; LINE, M.B.: The future of CD-ROMs for full text of journlas; FEIJEN, J.M.: Dutch reference databases (NRB); NOWAK, K.: The Deutsche Bibliographie and CD-ROM; SMITH, R.L.: CD-ROM for national bibliographies: a european project; CHADWYCK-HEALEY, C.: Two major British catalogues on CD-ROM

0.02857047 = product of:
  0.05714094 = sum of:
    0.05714094 = product of:
      0.11428188 = sum of:
        0.11428188 = weight(_text_:22 in 670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11428188 = score(doc=670,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 670, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2000 18:22:27

0.026936496 = product of:
  0.05387299 = sum of:
    0.05387299 = product of:
      0.10774598 = sum of:
        0.10774598 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10774598 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Reference librarian; no.22

0.013468248 = product of:
  0.026936496 = sum of:
    0.026936496 = product of:
      0.05387299 = sum of:
        0.05387299 = weight(_text_:22 in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05387299 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3558, 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=3558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 1.1996 22:47:52

0.010101185 = product of:
  0.02020237 = sum of:
    0.02020237 = product of:
      0.04040474 = sum of:
        0.04040474 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04040474 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, 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=3564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 1.1996 10:22:31

0.0035665217 = product of:
  0.0071330434 = sum of:
    0.0071330434 = product of:
      0.028532173 = sum of:
        0.028532173 = weight(_text_:authors in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028532173 = score(doc=3622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22658853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.12592064 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Criteria for Selection In selecting the writings to be included in this reader, we have followed the criteria listed below: 1. Theoretical emphasis. Our focus is an theoretical and philosophical aspects rather than practical or technical considerations. In a number of cases, where several authors have written an the same subject or idea or expressed similar thoughts, the originator of the idea, if this could be determined, was selected. 2. Significance and impact. Our most important criterion is the significance of a particular piece or the contribution that it has made in the field of subject analysis. The impact of the ideas or concepts an subsequent practice in subject analysis has also been considered. 3. Perspicuity. Where multiple choices were available an a particular topic or area, our tendency was to exclude the writings that are obscure or highly technical and would require a high degree of tech nical sophistication an the part of the reader. Comprehensibility and clarity of style were often our guide. Based an the criteria stated above, the following types of writings have generally been excluded: review articles, the how-to-do-it type of writings, and textbook materials. In a way, it would probably be easier to defend the writings that have been included than to justify the exclusions. In a small volume containing writings chosen from a vast amount of available material, it is virtually impossible to arrive at a collection that will satisfy every reader. Each person has his or her own preferences or criteria. Inevitably, personal bias comes into play in assembling such a reader. At least, we hope that in this case the collective bias of three individuals rather than one has helped to provide a certain degree of balance. A number of writings originally selected for inclusion were omitted because of space limitation or failure to secure permission to reprint.