Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023312453 = product of:
  0.046624906 = sum of:
    0.046624906 = sum of:
      0.0073713013 = weight(_text_:a in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0073713013 = score(doc=602,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
      0.039253604 = weight(_text_:22 in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039253604 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews issues related to the cataloging of Internet resources and considers shortand long-term directions for cataloging and the general provision of library services for remotely accessible, electronic information resources. The strengths and weakness of using a library catalog model to improve access to Internet resources are discussed and compared with a review of related efforts. Based on experience gained through two OCLC Internet cataloging projects, the authors recommend continued and vigorous appplication of library cataloging standards and methods for Internet resources with the expectation that catalogs, cataloging, and libraries in general will continue to evolve.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.197-238

Type

a

0.019982103 = product of:
  0.039964207 = sum of:
    0.039964207 = sum of:
      0.006318258 = weight(_text_:a in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006318258 = score(doc=164,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.033645947 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033645947 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = 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)

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

Type

a

0.0019904787 = product of:
  0.0039809574 = sum of:
    0.0039809574 = product of:
      0.007961915 = sum of:
        0.007961915 = weight(_text_:a in 512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007961915 = score(doc=512,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.16683382 = fieldWeight in 512, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The range, depths and limits of what we know depend on the media with which we attempt to record our knowledge. This essay begins with a brief review of developments in a) media: stone, manuscripts, books and digital media, to trace how collections of recorded knowledge expanded to 235,000 in 1837 and have expanded to over 100 million unique titles in a single database including over 1 billion individual listings in 2007. The advent of digital media has brought full text scanning and electronic networks, which enable us to consult digital books and images from our office, home or potentially even with our cell phones. These magnificent developments raise a number of concerns and new challenges. An historical survey of major projects that changed the world reveals that they have taken from one to eight centuries. This helps explain why commercial offerings, which offer useful, and even profitable short-term solutions often undermine a long-term vision. New technologies have the potential to transform our approach to knowledge, but require a vision of a systematic new approach to knowledge. This paper outlines four ingredients for such a vision in the European context. First, the scope of European observatories should be expanded to inform memory institutions of latest technological developments. Second, the quest for a European Digital Library should be expanded to include a distributed repository, a digital reference room and a virtual agora, whereby memory institutions will be linked with current research;. Third, there is need for an institute on Knowledge Organization that takes up anew Otlet's vision, and the pioneering efforts of the Mundaneum (Brussels) and the Bridge (Berlin). Fourth, we need to explore requirements for a Universal Digital Library, which works with countries around the world rather than simply imposing on them an external system. Here, the efforts of the proposed European University of Culture could be useful. Ultimately we need new systems, which open research into multiple ways of knowing, multiple "knowledges". In the past, we went to libraries to study the recorded world. In a world where cameras and sensors are omnipresent we have new recording worlds. In future, we may also use these recording worlds to study the riches of libraries.

0.001823924 = product of:
  0.003647848 = sum of:
    0.003647848 = product of:
      0.007295696 = sum of:
        0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007295696 = score(doc=978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0015795645 = product of:
  0.003159129 = sum of:
    0.003159129 = product of:
      0.006318258 = sum of:
        0.006318258 = weight(_text_:a in 5593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006318258 = score(doc=5593,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5593, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The amount of digital content produced at academic research institutions is large, and libraries and archives at these institutions have a responsibility to bring this digital material under curatorial control in order to manage and preserve it over time. But this is a daunting task with few proven models, requiring new technology, policies, procedures, core staff competencies, and cost models. The MIT Libraries are working with the DSpace(TM) open-source digital repository platform to explore the problem of capturing research and teaching material in any digital format and preserving it over time. By collaborating on this problem with other research institutions using the DSpace platform in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and other parts of the world, as well as with other important efforts in the digital preservation arena, we are beginning to see ways of managing arbitrary digital content that might make digital preservation an achievable goal.

Type

a

0.0013163039 = product of:
  0.0026326077 = sum of:
    0.0026326077 = product of:
      0.0052652154 = sum of:
        0.0052652154 = weight(_text_:a in 685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0052652154 = score(doc=685,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 685, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The paper examines academic historians' information interactions with material from digital historical-newspaper collections as the research process unfolds. Design/methodology/approach The study employed qualitative analysis from in-depth interviews with Finnish history scholars who use digitised historical newspapers as primary sources for their research. A model for task-based information interaction guided the collection and analysis of data. Findings The study revealed numerous information interactions within activities related to task-planning, the search process, selecting and working with the items and synthesis and reporting. The information interactions differ with the activities involved, which call for system support mechanisms specific to each activity type. Various activities feature information search, which is an essential research method for those using digital collections in the compilation and analysis of data. Furthermore, application of quantitative methods and multidisciplinary collaboration may be shaping culture in history research toward convergence with the research culture of the natural sciences. Originality/value For sustainable digital humanities infrastructure and digital collections, it is of great importance that system designers understand how the collections are accessed, why and their use in the real-world context. The study enriches understanding of the collections' utilisation and advances a theoretical framework for explicating task-based information interaction.

Type

a

0.0012159493 = product of:
  0.0024318986 = sum of:
    0.0024318986 = product of:
      0.004863797 = sum of:
        0.004863797 = weight(_text_:a in 1714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004863797 = score(doc=1714,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1714, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1714)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0010639556 = product of:
  0.0021279112 = sum of:
    0.0021279112 = product of:
      0.0042558224 = sum of:
        0.0042558224 = weight(_text_:a in 5712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0042558224 = score(doc=5712,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5712, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5712)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

9.11962E-4 = product of:
  0.001823924 = sum of:
    0.001823924 = product of:
      0.003647848 = sum of:
        0.003647848 = weight(_text_:a in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003647848 = score(doc=47,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

7.5996824E-4 = product of:
  0.0015199365 = sum of:
    0.0015199365 = product of:
      0.003039873 = sum of:
        0.003039873 = weight(_text_:a in 2785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003039873 = score(doc=2785,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 2785, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

6.0797465E-4 = product of:
  0.0012159493 = sum of:
    0.0012159493 = product of:
      0.0024318986 = sum of:
        0.0024318986 = weight(_text_:a in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024318986 = score(doc=4250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Über die letzten Jahrzehnte ist die Menge digitaler Publikationen exponentiell angestiegen. Doch die digitalen Bestände sind durch die schleichende Obsoletheit von Datenformaten, Software und Hardware bedroht. Aber auch die zunehmende Komplexität neuerer Dokumente und zugehöriger Abspielumgebungen stellt ein Problem dar. Das Thema der Langzeitarchivierung wurde lange vernachlässigt, rückt aber zunehmend ins Bewusstsein der Verantwortlichen und der Öffentlichkeit, nicht zuletzt wegen spektakulärer Datenverluste. Ziel dieser Studie ist es, Grundlagen und Bausteine für eine technische Lösung zu entwickeln und deren Einbettung in die Aufgabenbereiche einer Archivierungsorganisation aufzuzeigen. Es fehlt eine systematische Herangehensweise zum Aufbau technischen Wissens, die der Heterogenität und Komplexität sowie der bereits vorhandenen Obsoletheit in der Welt des digitalen Publizierens gerecht wird. In einem ersten Schritt entwickeln wir deshalb ein Modell, das sich spezifisch den technischen Aspekten digitaler Objekte widmet. Dieses Modell erlaubt es, digitale Objekte bezüglich der Archivierungsaspekte zu charakterisieren und zu klassifizieren sowie technische Grundlagen präzise zuzuordnen. Auf dieser Basis können u. a. systematisch modulare Metadatenschemata gewonnen werden, die den Langzeiterhalt gezielt unterstützen. Das Modell liefert außerdem einen Beitrag zur Formulierung von zugehörigen Ontologien. Des Weiteren fördern die Modularität der Metadatenschemata und die einheitliche Begrifflichkeit einer Ontologie die Föderation und Kooperation von Archivierungsorganisationen und -systemen. Die Abstützung auf das entwickelte Modell systematisiert in einem weiteren Schritt die Herleitung von technisch orientierten Prozessen zur Erfüllung von Archivierungsaufgaben. Der Entwicklung eines eigenen Modells liegt die Einschätzung zu Grunde, dass Referenzmodelle, wie OAIS (Open Archival Information System), zwar eine geeignete Ausgangsbasis auf konzeptioneller Ebene bieten, aber sie sind zu generell und beschreiben vor- oder nachgelagerte Prozesse nur als Schnittstelle. Die aus dem Modell hergeleiteten Lösungsansätze sind zunächst unabhängig von einer konkreten Realisierung. Als Beitrag zur Umsetzung wird in einem eigenen Abschnitt der Einsatz von Datenbankmanagementsystemen (DBMS) als Implementierungsbasis ausführlich diskutiert.