Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Zumer, M."
  • × theme_ss:"OPAC"
  1. Zumer, M.; Riesthuis, G.J.A.: Consequences of implementing FRBR : are we ready to open pandora's box? (2002) 0.00
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = product of:
          0.011481222 = sum of:
            0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011481222 = score(doc=637,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The study Functional Requirements for Bibliograpbic Records (FRBR) was commissioned by IFLA and published in 1998. It defines the core functions of a catalogue (and bibliographic records) as a gateway to information. For that purpose an abstract entity-relationship model of a catalogue is proposed. The FRBR model is revolutionary. The (computer) catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a replica of the traditional card catalogue, but rather as a network of connected entities, enabling the user to perform seamlessly all the necessary functions. So far there has been some theoretical discussion of the model and some limited experiments, but there is a lack of research in how to implement this theoretical model in practice, in new-generation catalogues. In this paper some reactions to the model are analysed. The main focus is an consequences of the model for the OPAC interface design, particularly the searching functionality and display of results.
    Type
    a
  2. Zumer, M.; Zeng, L.: Comparison and evaluation of OPAC end-user interfaces (1994) 0.00
    0.0023435948 = product of:
      0.0046871896 = sum of:
        0.0046871896 = product of:
          0.009374379 = sum of:
            0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009374379 = score(doc=3568,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Compares and evaluates the functional capabilities and interface characteristics of OPACs from the user oriented perspective, using a systematic framework. OPACs of OhioLINK and its 16 member libraries are the object of the investigation. The interfaces used 6 system software but showed a variety of features in access to OPACs, operational control, access points, search formulation control, and user assistance. Interface design alternatives are identified and qualitatively analyzed
    Type
    a
  3. Riesthuis, G.J.A.; Zumer, M.: FRBR and FRANAR : subject access (2004) 0.00
    0.001913537 = product of:
      0.003827074 = sum of:
        0.003827074 = product of:
          0.007654148 = sum of:
            0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007654148 = score(doc=2646,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.
    Content
    1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.
    Type
    a