Search (80 results, page 1 of 4)

0.06845674 = product of:
  0.13691348 = sum of:
    0.13691348 = sum of:
      0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09438516 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
      0.042528324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042528324 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2226, 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=2226)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Venice University Institute of Architecture has developed Easyweb, a software package to integrate its heterogeneous non-compatible bibliographic and multimedia databases, standardise access and create internal links, by transferring all existing OPAC applications to the Web. Features include importation of UNIMARC data, multiple window searching, multibase searching and special applications, e.g. circulation management. Easyweb is notable user friendly and has become the point of reference for OPACs in Italy

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1998, no.178, S.20-22

0.06741798 = product of:
  0.13483596 = sum of:
    0.13483596 = product of:
      0.26967192 = sum of:
        0.26967192 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26967192 = score(doc=1938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            1.1527703 = fieldWeight in 1938, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.053934377 = product of:
  0.10786875 = sum of:
    0.10786875 = product of:
      0.2157375 = sum of:
        0.2157375 = weight(_text_:e.g in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2157375 = score(doc=530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.9222162 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.053934377 = product of:
  0.10786875 = sum of:
    0.10786875 = product of:
      0.2157375 = sum of:
        0.2157375 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2157375 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.9222162 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03422837 = product of:
  0.06845674 = sum of:
    0.06845674 = sum of:
      0.04719258 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04719258 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.20173478 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.021264162 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021264162 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = 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)

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

0.026967188 = product of:
  0.053934377 = sum of:
    0.053934377 = product of:
      0.10786875 = sum of:
        0.10786875 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10786875 = score(doc=3867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.4611081 = fieldWeight in 3867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Suggests a user based approach to system design and evaluation, of computerized library systems (e.g. OPACs), which is application specific. Data was collected on 93 end user interactions with a newly implemented OPAC in a large US university library. Concludes that researchers need to explore questions relating directly to problems, faced by users and to present findings in ways which provide action oriented recommendations

0.0243019 = product of:
  0.0486038 = sum of:
    0.0486038 = product of:
      0.0972076 = sum of:
        0.0972076 = weight(_text_:22 in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0972076 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7403, 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=7403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.21-31

0.0243019 = product of:
  0.0486038 = sum of:
    0.0486038 = product of:
      0.0972076 = sum of:
        0.0972076 = weight(_text_:22 in 7483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0972076 = score(doc=7483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7483, 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=7483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.133-142

0.02359629 = product of:
  0.04719258 = sum of:
    0.04719258 = product of:
      0.09438516 = sum of:
        0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09438516 = score(doc=3832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 3832, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the Mercury project, at Carnegie Mellon Univ. Library, Pennsylvania, aimed at extending the scope of the OPAC to include other functions and services: access to full text and other online databases. The collection of databases (e.g. INSPEC, IBI/INFORM) forms the Library Information Systems (LIS2) and is accessible via a common user interface. Describes the distributed computer architecture of the Mercury electronic library with particular note of the document delivery service built into the system and designed to produce electronic documents in ASCII and bitmapped page image format, and in hardcopy format using electronic mail and print services. Pays particular attention to the principles underlying the design of the user interface and gives examples of the UNIX/Motif and VT100 search screens

0.02359629 = product of:
  0.04719258 = sum of:
    0.04719258 = product of:
      0.09438516 = sum of:
        0.09438516 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09438516 = score(doc=4704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40346956 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Focuses on the user and human-computer interaction (HCI) aspects of the research based on the Okapi text retrieval system. Describes 3 experiments using different approaches to query expansion, highlighting the relationship between the functionality of a system and different interface designs. These experiments involve both automatic and interactive query expansion, and both character based and GUI (graphical user interface) environments. The effectiveness of the search interaction for query expansion depends on resolving opposing interface and functional aspects, e.g. automatic vs. interactive query expansion, explicit vs. implicit use of a thesaurus, and document vs. query space

0.021480048 = product of:
  0.042960096 = sum of:
    0.042960096 = product of:
      0.08592019 = sum of:
        0.08592019 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08592019 = score(doc=4368,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:36:10
22. 1.2000 19:41:58

0.021264162 = product of:
  0.042528324 = sum of:
    0.042528324 = product of:
      0.08505665 = sum of:
        0.08505665 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505665 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bulletin des bibliothèques de France. 34(1989) no.1, S.22-47

0.021264162 = product of:
  0.042528324 = sum of:
    0.042528324 = product of:
      0.08505665 = sum of:
        0.08505665 = weight(_text_:22 in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505665 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Eine Replik zu Auer: OPAC und Zeichensatz (Mitteilungen der VÖB 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22)

0.021264162 = product of:
  0.042528324 = sum of:
    0.042528324 = product of:
      0.08505665 = sum of:
        0.08505665 = weight(_text_:22 in 7584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505665 = score(doc=7584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekare. 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22

0.021264162 = product of:
  0.042528324 = sum of:
    0.042528324 = product of:
      0.08505665 = sum of:
        0.08505665 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505665 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.10, S.326-330

0.021264162 = product of:
  0.042528324 = sum of:
    0.042528324 = product of:
      0.08505665 = sum of:
        0.08505665 = weight(_text_:22 in 4513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505665 = score(doc=4513,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4513, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 3.2000 15:22:58

0.020225393 = product of:
  0.040450785 = sum of:
    0.040450785 = product of:
      0.08090157 = sum of:
        0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08090157 = score(doc=1635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 1635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To an overwhelming extent, storage and retrieval systems were designed for information intermediaries who were specialists in formal, controlled documentation languages (e.g. classification systems, indexing languages) and who were then trained to utilize the query language of each retrieval system. However, with the advent of the microcomputer, there now exists, in the information retrieval industry, an obvious will to tackle both the professional and the personal information markets, as evidences by their more sophisticated yet more user-friendly systems and by the design and marketing of all sorts of interface software (front-end, gateway, intermediary). In order to make full advantage of these systems, the user must be able to master three different languages: the natural language of the discipline, the indexing language, and the system's query language. The author defines and characterizes each of these languages and identifies their issues and trends in the IR cycle and specifically in public online search services. Finally he proposes a theoretical model for the analysis of IR languages and suggests a few research avenues

0.018226424 = product of:
  0.03645285 = sum of:
    0.03645285 = product of:
      0.0729057 = sum of:
        0.0729057 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0729057 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.018226424 = product of:
  0.03645285 = sum of:
    0.03645285 = product of:
      0.0729057 = sum of:
        0.0729057 = weight(_text_:22 in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0729057 = score(doc=4106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.016685098 = product of:
  0.033370197 = sum of:
    0.033370197 = product of:
      0.06674039 = sum of:
        0.06674039 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06674039 = score(doc=1172,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.28529608 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.