Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017675493 = product of:
  0.035350986 = sum of:
    0.035350986 = product of:
      0.07070197 = sum of:
        0.07070197 = weight(_text_:i in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07070197 = score(doc=1879,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.010773714 = product of:
  0.021547427 = sum of:
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043094855 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3656, 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=3656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.010773714 = product of:
  0.021547427 = sum of:
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043094855 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170

0.008927471 = product of:
  0.017854942 = sum of:
    0.017854942 = product of:
      0.035709884 = sum of:
        0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 2919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035709884 = score(doc=2919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.b-i-t-online.de/daten/BIT_Innovativ_23_Kneifel.pdf.

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In schätzungsweise jedem vierten deutschen Zeitungsartikel und InternetDokument, in dem der italienische Vorname Giuseppe enthalten ist, taucht der Fehler auf, sei nun die Rede von Verdi, Arcimboldo oder Garibaldi: Giuseppe wird falsch geschrieben, nämlich als *Guiseppe, als handele sich um eine Variante von Guido, was dem deutschen Auge offensichtlich vertrauter ist. Bemerkenswert ist, dass die Buchstaben "i" und "u° auf der Tastatur direkt nebeneinander liegen, was der Tippfehleranfälligkeit Vorschub leistet. Lässt man die Internet-Suchmaschine Google "Seiten auf deutsch" absuchen, findet sie 61.500 Giuseppes und 15.200 *Guiseppes (über 25%). Google ist übrigens seit neuestem so "intelligent', bei der falschen Eingabe zu fragen: "Meinten Sie Giuseppe?'. Schränkt man die Suchmaschine auf italienisch-sprachige Seiten ein, sinkt der Anteil der falschen Schreibweise auf 0,54 % (426.000 richtige gegen 2.330 falsche). Bei genauerem Hinsehen tauchen die meisten der Falschschreibungen bei offenbar amerikanischen dot-com-Seiten auf, die italienische Genealogien aufschlüsseln. Die genuin aus Italien stammenden Seiten weisen nur in den allerwenigsten Fällen den Fehler auf. Dieses Phänomen fiel mir als Romanistin zunächst auf, dann störte es mich, später belustigte es mich beinahe und schließlich wurde die Suche danach fast zum Spiel. Unter bibliothekarischen Gesichtspunkten ist der Fehler ein Ärgernis, hat sich doch diese falsche Schreibweise massenhaft in bibliothekarische Datenbanken eingeschlichen. Als ich schon vor Jahren eine Düsseldorfer Diplombibliothekarin darauf ansprach, widersprach diese und behauptete, es gebe sehr wohl den Namen in der Schreibweise *Guiseppe neben der - vielleicht üblicheren - Form Giuseppe. Und tatsächlich findet sich die falsche Form in manchen Vornamenbüchern - so oft schon wurde der Fehler tradiert, dass er jetzt schon legitimiert erscheint. Schlägt man hingegen in italienischen Vornamenbüchern nach, zeigt sich, dass man hier vergeblich nach *Guiseppe suchen muss.

0.0062492304 = product of:
  0.012498461 = sum of:
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = weight(_text_:i in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024996921 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.14585242 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, 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.

0.0061564078 = product of:
  0.0123128155 = sum of:
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024625631 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:40:38