Search (1702 results, page 1 of 86)

0.15256749 = product of:
  0.3814187 = sum of:
    0.25011417 = weight(_text_:books in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25011417 = score(doc=13,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.85437655 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
    0.13130453 = weight(_text_:22 in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13130453 = score(doc=13,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 13, 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=13)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.14-18

0.14047532 = product of:
  0.3511883 = sum of:
    0.1323384 = weight(_text_:objects in 4459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1323384 = score(doc=4459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 4459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4459)
    0.2188499 = weight(_text_:books in 4459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2188499 = score(doc=4459,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.74757946 = fieldWeight in 4459, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4459)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper presents a grammar for books and journals using augmented transition networks in automated document analysis. The approach takes the structure of layout elements in books and journals to be part of a semiotic system, which therefore can be described using methods developed for the description of other semiotic systems, e.g. languages. It differs from previous research in the domain of document analysis and understanding as it deals in an exhaustive way with rather generic classes of multi-page printed objects, i.e. books (monographs) and journals. To achieve this aim, abstract relations instead of document specific formatting rules are taken into account.

0.13513903 = product of:
  0.33784756 = sum of:
    0.28860837 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28860837 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.51352155 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.0492392 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0492392 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.12085094 = product of:
  0.30212736 = sum of:
    0.24468163 = weight(_text_:books in 1802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24468163 = score(doc=1802,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.83581924 = fieldWeight in 1802, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1802)
    0.05744573 = weight(_text_:22 in 1802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05744573 = score(doc=1802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1802, 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=1802)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Der Beitrag verfolgt das Ziel einer praxisorientierten Bestandsaufnahme der aktuellen Situation auf dem Markt kostenpflichtiger E-Books aus der Perspektive wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken. Ausgehend von den Erwartungen, die von Nutzer- und Bibliotheksseite an diese relativ neue Gattung elektronischer Medien gerichtet werden können, und dem den E-Books grundsätzlich unterstellten Potenzial wird der tatsächlich erreichte Stand näher beleuchtet. Untersucht werden dabei neben einer allgemeinen Markteinschätzung Aspekte wie gängige Zugriffsoptionen, Preis-und Geschäftsmodelle, Vertriebswege, Recherche- und Nutzungsmöglichkeiten oder auch Erschließungsfragen. Der Aufsatz mündet in einen exemplarischen Blick auf bisher gewonnene konkrete Erfahrungen mit E-Books an wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken sowie die Andeutung möglicher Entwicklungsperspektiven.

Date

11. 5.2008 19:13:22

Object

E-Books

0.11181738 = product of:
  0.27954346 = sum of:
    0.21389118 = weight(_text_:objects in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21389118 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.6643839 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
    0.065652266 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065652266 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

RLG has used METS for a particular application, that is as a wrapper for structural metadata. When RLG cultural materials was launched, there was no single way to deal with "complex digital objects". METS provides a standard means of encoding metadata regarding the digital objects represented in RCM, and METS has now been fully integrated into the workflow for this service.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68

0.110518254 = product of:
  0.27629563 = sum of:
    0.2188499 = weight(_text_:books in 2853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2188499 = score(doc=2853,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.74757946 = fieldWeight in 2853, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2853)
    0.05744573 = weight(_text_:22 in 2853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05744573 = score(doc=2853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2853, 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=2853)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The management of library "pick-up books" - a phrase that refers to books pulled off the shelves by readers, discarded in the library after use, and picked up by library assistants for reshelving - is an issue for many collection managers. This research attempts to use geographic information system (GIS) software as a tool to monitor the use of such books so that their distributions by book shelf-ranges can be displayed visually. With GIS, library floor layouts are drawn as maps. This research produces some explanations of the habits of library patrons browsing shelved materials, and makes suggestions to librarians on the expansion of library collections and the rearrangement potential for library space.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.209-216

0.110354744 = product of:
  0.27588686 = sum of:
    0.11343292 = weight(_text_:objects in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11343292 = score(doc=859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
    0.16245393 = weight(_text_:books in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16245393 = score(doc=859,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.5549339 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - Aims to focus on the correct attitude of the librarian when selecting fiction. Design/methodology/approach - The article discusses the banning of books in libraries from the context of what was perceived as a moral decline in the literature at the time that the article was written in 1928. Findings - The author's view is that no novel written has sufficient quality to be a source of trouble between a public library and its people. It should be bought if the reviewers praise it enough; it should be circulated freely until someone objects; and in that event it should be withdrawn from the open shelf, but it should be left in the catalogue. The person who wants it will ask for it, and if that person is of mature years, may be allowed, without question, to have it. Originality/value - The article provides information of a historical nature, of value to information professionals.

Content

Vgl..: Burton, P.F.: On reading "The banning of books in libraries". In: Library review. 56(2007) no.3, S.197-199.

0.100960985 = product of:
  0.25240245 = sum of:
    0.2113698 = weight(_text_:objects in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2113698 = score(doc=2754,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.656552 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
    0.04103267 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04103267 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article presents an exploratory study of Blobgects, an experimental interface for an online museum catalog that enables social tagging and blogging activity around a set of cultural heritage objects held by a preeminent museum of anthropology and archaeology. This study attempts to understand not just whether social tagging and commenting about these objects is useful but rather whose tags and voices matter in presenting different expert perspectives around digital museum objects. Based on an empirical comparison between two different user groups (Canadian Inuit high-school students and museum studies students in the United States), we found that merely adding the ability to tag and comment to the museum's catalog does not sufficiently allow users to learn about or engage with the objects represented by catalog entries. Rather, the specialist language of the catalog provides too little contextualization for users to enter into the sort of dialog that proponents of Web 2.0 technologies promise. Overall, we propose a more nuanced application of Web 2.0 technologies within museums - one which provides a contextual basis that gives users a starting point for engagement and permits users to make sense of objects in relation to their own needs, uses, and understandings.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:52:32

0.09879013 = product of:
  0.24697532 = sum of:
    0.18952958 = weight(_text_:books in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18952958 = score(doc=129,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.64742285 = fieldWeight in 129, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=129)
    0.05744573 = weight(_text_:22 in 129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05744573 = score(doc=129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 129, 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=129)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Papers on the cataloging of electronic resources have focused on electronic journals and Internet resources such as Web sites and not on electronic books. Electronic books are nonserial monographic resources accessed with a computer either directly or remotely. Rules and standards for cataloging electronic resources have changed and continue to change. This article discusses the electronic book as a unique manifestation and provides practical instruction on the application of current cataloging rules. The cataloging elements covered are control fields and variable data fields, including classification, uniform titles, title information, edition information, type and extent of the resource, publication and distribution information, physical description, series statements, notes, and subject analysis.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.09768715 = product of:
  0.24421787 = sum of:
    0.13368198 = weight(_text_:objects in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13368198 = score(doc=194,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
    0.1105359 = weight(_text_:books in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1105359 = score(doc=194,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.37758467 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In the first part of this article the author defines the n-overlap vector whose coordinates consist of the fraction of the objects (e.g., books, N-grams, etc.) that belong to 1, 2, , n sets (more generally: families) (e.g., libraries, databases, etc.). With the aid of the Lorenz concentration theory, a theory of n-overlap similarity is conceived together with corresponding measures, such as the generalized Jaccard index (generalizing the well-known Jaccard index in case n 5 2). Next, the distributional form of the n-overlap vector is determined assuming certain distributions of the object's and of the set (family) sizes. In this section the decreasing power law and decreasing exponential distribution is explained for the n-overlap vector. Both item (token) n-overlap and source (type) n-overlap are studied. The n-overlap properties of objects indexed by a hierarchical system (e.g., books indexed by numbers from a UDC or Dewey system or by N-grams) are presented in the final section. The author shows how the results given in the previous section can be applied as well as how the Lorenz order of the n-overlap vector is respected by an increase or a decrease of the level of refinement in the hierarchical system (e.g., the value N in N-grams).

0.09472994 = product of:
  0.23682484 = sum of:
    0.18758564 = weight(_text_:books in 160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18758564 = score(doc=160,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.6407824 = fieldWeight in 160, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=160)
    0.0492392 = weight(_text_:22 in 160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0492392 = score(doc=160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 160, 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=160)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The appearance in OCLC and RLIN of minimal level catalog records from European book vendors for European language monographs and their effect on cataloging department workflows and cooperative cataloging efforts have been matters of concern expressed recently at ALA meetings and in the library literature. A study of 8,778 catalog records was undertaken to discover how many current European language monographs were being cataloged by the Library of Congress, by member libraries, and by vendors. It was found that vendor records accounted for 16. 7% of Spanish books, 18% of French books, 33.6% of German books, and 52.5% of those in Italian. The number of libraries enhancing vendor records in OCLC was found to be only approximately one-third the number of libraries contributing original records for European language books. Ongoing increases in European book publishing and the increasing globalization of cataloging databases mean that the results of this study have implications not only for local cataloging practice but for cooperative cataloging as a whole.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.086758465 = product of:
  0.21689616 = sum of:
    0.1512439 = weight(_text_:objects in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1512439 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
    0.065652266 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065652266 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.08617601 = product of:
  0.21544002 = sum of:
    0.07562195 = weight(_text_:objects in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07562195 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 1180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1180)
    0.13981807 = weight(_text_:books in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13981807 = score(doc=1180,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.477611 = fieldWeight in 1180, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1180)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Greek historian Herodotus has the Athenian sage Solon estimate the lifetime of a human being at c. 26,250 days (Herodotus, The Histories, 1.32). If we could read a book on each of those days, it would take almost forty lifetimes to work through every volume in a single million book library. The continuous tradition of written European literature that began with the Iliad and Odyssey in the eighth century BCE is itself little more than a million days old. While libraries that contain more than one million items are not unusual, print libraries never possessed a million books of use to any one reader. The great libraries that took shape in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were meta-structures, whose catalogues and finding aids allowed readers to create their own customized collections, building on the fixed classification schemes and disciplinary structures that took shape in the nineteenth century. The digital libraries of the early twenty-first century can be searched and their contents transmitted around the world. They can contain time-based media, images, quantitative data, and a far richer array of content than print, with visualization technologies blurring the boundaries between library and museum. But our digital libraries remain filled with digital incunabula - digital objects whose form remains firmly rooted in traditions of print, with HTML and PDF largely mimicking the limitations of their print predecessors. Vast collections based on image books - raw digital pictures of books with searchable but uncorrected text from OCR - could arguably retard our long-term progress, reinforcing the hegemony of structures that evolved to minimize the challenges of a world where paper was the only medium of distribution and where humans alone could read. Already the books in a digital library are beginning to read one another and to confer among themselves before creating a new synthetic document for review by their human readers.

0.085431576 = product of:
  0.21357894 = sum of:
    0.1323384 = weight(_text_:objects in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1323384 = score(doc=2746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
    0.081240535 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081240535 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Fundamental forms of information, as well as the term information itself, are defined and developed for the purposes of information science/studies. Concepts of natural and represented information (taking an unconventional sense of representation), encoded and embodied information, as well as experienced, enacted, expressed, embedded, recorded, and trace information are elaborated. The utility of these terms for the discipline is illustrated with examples from the study of information-seeking behavior and of information genres. Distinctions between the information and curatorial sciences with respect to their social (and informational) objects of study are briefly outlined.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

0.08473707 = product of:
  0.21184267 = sum of:
    0.13368198 = weight(_text_:objects in 5063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13368198 = score(doc=5063,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 5063, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5063)
    0.07816069 = weight(_text_:books in 5063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07816069 = score(doc=5063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 5063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5063)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The application of thesauri in networked environments is seriously hampered by the challenges of introducing new concepts and terminology into the formal controlled vocabulary, which is critical for enhancing its retrieval capability. The author describes an automated process of adding new terms to thesauri as entry vocabulary by analyzing the association between words/phrases extracted from bibliographic titles and subject descriptors in the metadata record (subject descriptors are terms assigned from controlled vocabularies of thesauri to describe the subjects of the objects [e.g., books, articles] represented by the metadata records). The investigated approach uses a corpus of metadata for scientific and technical (S&T) publications in which the titles contain substantive words for key topics. The three steps of the method are (a) extracting words and phrases from the title field of the metadata; (b) applying a method to identify and select the specific and meaningful keywords based on the associated controlled vocabulary terms from the thesaurus used to catalog the objects; and (c) inserting selected keywords into the thesaurus as new terms (most of them are in hierarchical relationships with the existing concepts), thereby updating the thesaurus with new terminology that is being used in the literature. The effectiveness of the method was demonstrated by an experiment with the Chinese Classification Thesaurus (CCT) and bibliographic data in China Machine-Readable Cataloging Record (MARC) format (CNMARC) provided by Peking University Library. This approach is equally effective in large-scale collections and in other languages.

0.08467726 = product of:
  0.21169314 = sum of:
    0.16245393 = weight(_text_:books in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16245393 = score(doc=1087,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.5549339 = fieldWeight in 1087, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1087)
    0.0492392 = weight(_text_:22 in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0492392 = score(doc=1087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1087, 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=1087)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Core Standard for Rare Books, known as the DCRB Core standard, was approved by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging for use beginning in January 1999. Comparable to the core standards for other types of materials, the DCRB Core standard provides requirements for an intermediate level of bibliographic description for the cataloging of rare books. While the Core Standard for Books seems to have found a place in general cataloging practice, the DCRB Core standard appears to have met with resistance among rare book cataloging practitioners. This study investigates the extent to which such resistance exists by examining all of the DCRB Core records in the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) Online Union Catalog (WorldCat) and the Research Libraries Croup Union Catalog (RLIN) databases that were created during the standard's first five years. The study analyzes the content of the records for adherence to the standard and investigates the ways in which the flexibility of the standard and cataloger's judgment augmented many records with more than the mandatory elements of description and access.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.08467726 = product of:
  0.21169314 = sum of:
    0.16245393 = weight(_text_:books in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16245393 = score(doc=3601,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.5549339 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.0492392 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0492392 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.083863035 = product of:
  0.20965758 = sum of:
    0.16041838 = weight(_text_:objects in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16041838 = score(doc=4752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 4752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4752)
    0.0492392 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0492392 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2121093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

As educational technology becomes pervasive, demand will grow for library content to be incorporated into courseware. Among the barriers impeding interoperability between libraries and educational tools is the difference in specifications commonly used for the exchange of digital objects and metadata. Among libraries, Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a new but increasingly popular standard; the IMS content-package (IMS-CP) plays a parallel role in educational technology. This article describes how METS-encoded library content can be converted into digital objects for IMS-compliant systems through an XSLT-based crosswalk. The conceptual models behind METS and IMS-CP are compared, the design and limitations of an XSLT-based translation are described, and the crosswalks are related to other techniques to enhance interoperability.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81

0.082890294 = product of:
  0.20722574 = sum of:
    0.11343292 = weight(_text_:objects in 5530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11343292 = score(doc=5530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 5530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5530)
    0.09379282 = weight(_text_:books in 5530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09379282 = score(doc=5530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 5530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5530)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this article the relationship between classification/indexing and retrieval is discussed. In library and information science, classification and retrieval have always been closely associated with each other. But in certain ages, because of a lack of interest in applying knowledge, it was thought that libraries were just a place for gathering and keeping books and other documents as assets. And therefore, people thought that classification was simply for arrangement, in order to have a kind of system for objects that they considered to be luxuries. The reason for this lies in their static view of things, including libraries. Changing attitudes and having a dynamic view of the world of reality will change everything. Thus, if we define that the library is not only a place for book collection but is a place where people fill their information needs, and also that librarianship is not mainly about classification, but is a discipline by which we retrieve information and receive knowledge, we may see a great change in the retrieval process.

0.082890294 = product of:
  0.20722574 = sum of:
    0.11343292 = weight(_text_:objects in 5531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11343292 = score(doc=5531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32193914 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 5531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5531)
    0.09379282 = weight(_text_:books in 5531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09379282 = score(doc=5531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29274467 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060570993 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 5531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5531)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this article the relationship between classification/indexing and retrieval is discussed. In library and information science, classification and retrieval have always been closely associated with each other. But in certain ages, because of a lack of interest in applying knowledge, it was thought that libraries were just a place for gathering and keeping books and other documents as assets. And therefore, people thought that classification was simply for arrangement, in order to have a kind of system for objects that they considered to be luxuries. The reason for this lies in their static view of things, including libraries. Changing attitudes and having a dynamic view of the world of reality will change everything. Thus, if we define that the library is not only a place for book collection but is a place where people fill their information needs, and also that librarianship is not mainly about classification, but is a discipline by which we retrieve information and receive knowledge, we may see a great change in the retrieval process.