Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.020292569 = product of:
  0.060877703 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=3632,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.04690907 = weight(_text_:und in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04690907 = score(doc=3632,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

"Katalogisierung" klingt in manchen Ohren altmodisch. Man redet heute von "Metadaten"! Gemeint ist aber nichts völlig anderes. Es gibt nur viele neue Formen, Praktiken und Nutzungen, während sich früher Katalogdaten fast nur in Katalogen und Bibliographien befanden. "Metadaten" ist nur ein neuer Oberbegriff, aber in einer Katalogdatenbank haben wir längst mehr und andersartige Datenelemente und Funktionen als in Zettelkatalogen. Es ist notwendig, weiter auszugreifen als es die klassischen Regelwerke, RAK und AACR, getan haben, und deren hergebrachte Konzepte zu überdenken.

Footnote

Präsentation zum Vortrag "Zur Zukunft der Katalogisierung" während des Österreichischen Bibliothekartages in Linz 22.09.2004, Themenkreis: Google und die Zukunft der bibliothekarischen Erschließung. - Zuletzt aktualisiert: 15.07.2008.

0.016494038 = product of:
  0.04948211 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 2150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=2150,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 2150, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2150)
    0.040207777 = weight(_text_:und in 2150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040207777 = score(doc=2150,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 2150, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2150)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Seit Einführung der neuen Discovery-Kataloge stehen unseren Nutzerinnen und Nutzern zusätzlich Millionen von Dokumenten neben dem lokalen Buchbestand zur Verfügung. Diese Zielgruppe muss in die Lage versetzt werden, die für sie relevanten Titel einfach und sicher zu finden. Die Qualität von Empfehlungsfunktionen und besonders der Relevanz-Ranking-Methoden sind daher für den Erfolg eines Discovery-Systems besonders wichtig. Das Ranking bibliothekarischer Suchmaschinentechnik ignoriert bisher das Feedback durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. Die Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen (SuUB) setzt mit dem in Bremen entwickelten Discovery-System "E-LIB" seit Sommer 2011 zusätzlich auf eine Modifikation des Treffer-Rankings über Popularitätsfaktoren der Medien wie Klickstatistik, Auflagen- und Exemplarzahl. Die maßgeschneiderte Entwicklung eines eigenen Bibliothekskataloges, den die SuUB seit 2004 mit dem Discovery-System "E-LIB" in Bremen betreibt, erlaubt die schnelle und flexible Anpassung von Retrievalfunktionen an die Bedürfnisse der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer vor Ort.

0.015461872 = product of:
  0.046385616 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=2480,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
    0.037461385 = weight(_text_:und in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037461385 = score(doc=2480,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.3871834 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Die vorhandenen Bibliothekskatalogsysteme sind aufgrund der Rahmenbedingungen ihrer historischen Entwicklung und ihrer monolithischen Konzeption wenig flexibel an aktuelle Suchstandards und die Verwaltung elektronischer Medien anzupassen. Das hybride Angebot an klassischen Printmedien einerseits und elektronischen Dokumenten anderseits sowie die erhebliche, stetig wachsende Vielfalt an Medientypen und Zugangsvarianten stellen die elektronischen Kataloge der Bibliotheken vor große Herausforderungen. Zur Erschließung dieses Medien-Mixes bedarf es neuer moderner Suchsysteme. In Bibliotheken ist bisher übliche Praxis, den Nachweis verschiedener Medientypen über viele unterschiedliche externe Systeme abzuwickeln. Die Problematik dieser heterogenen Nachweissituation ist Kunden kaum transparent zu machen. Durch ihre Recherche-Erfahrungen mit Suchmaschinen wie Google erwarten Nutzer demgegenüber ein einfaches und einheitliches Suchinterface für alle Fragestellungen und einen möglichst direkten Zugriff auf die relevanten Volltexte. Um dieser Nachfrage in Zukunft besser gerecht zu werden, führen viele wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken sog. Discoverykataloge ein.
Die E-LIB der SuUB Bremen arbeitet bereits seit 2004 als einheitlicher Katalog elektronischer und gedruckter Medien auf Basis von selbst entwickelter Suchmaschinentechnologie. Alle wesentlichen Medien und Dienste der Bibliothek werden unter einer Suchoberfläche angeboten, um die übliche heterogene Nachweissituation der verschiedenen Medientypen soweit wie möglich aufzulösen. Das Projekt verfolgt das Ziel, alle lokalen Bestände vor Ort und alle für Bremer Nutzer im Zugriff extern verfügbaren Medien in einem einzigen Retrievalsystem zur Verfügung zu stellen und neu entwickelte Verfahren zur Unterstützung von assoziativen Suchprozessen anzubieten. In dem von der Bibliothek kontrollierten Suchraum der Bremer E-LIB finden sich derzeit ca. 60 Mio. Nachweise - zu über 90% elektronische Volltexte.

0.01501588 = product of:
  0.045047637 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
    0.037908252 = weight(_text_:und in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037908252 = score(doc=3069,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Mashups können durch die Kombination von Daten einen Mehrwert gegenüber den ursprünglichen Informationsquellen bieten. Diese Arbeit stellt Mashups vor und zeigt, wie Bibliotheken Mashups bislang für sich nutzen. Des weiteren wird untersucht, wie verbreitet sie auf ausgewählten Websites wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken sind. Abschließend wird anhand eines einfachen, praktischen Beispiels erläutert, wie ein Mashup realisiert werden kann, und welche Schritte dafür notwendig sind.

Footnote

Bachelor-Arbeit im Studiengang Bibliotheks- und Informationsmanagement an der Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart.

0.014422532 = product of:
  0.043267597 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=4001,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4001, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4001)
    0.035538986 = weight(_text_:und in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035538986 = score(doc=4001,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.3673144 = fieldWeight in 4001, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4001)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Das Exzellenzcluster Kognitive Interaktionstechnologie (CITEC) an der Universität Bielefeld beschäftigt sich seit 2013 mit der virtuellen Realität (VR). Ausgehend von konkreten Projektkooperationen (Publikations- und Forschungsdatenmanagement) mit der Universitätsbibliothek ist die Idee entstanden, mit der in 2016 neu angebotenen Konsumer-VR-Hardware die im Labor entwickelten Interaktionstechniken auf geeignete Szenarien im Bereich von bibliothekarischen Umgebungen anzuwenden. Als interessantes Anwendungsgebiet kristallisierte sich im gemeinsamen Diskurs die Literatursuche heraus: Als Suchsystem wurde die Bielefelder BASE-Datenbank (d.i. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine mit inzwischen mehr als 100 Mio. indexierten Dokumenten) ausgewählt. Diese Auswahl erfolgte vor dem Hintergrund, dass sich die von zahlreichen externen Institutionen bereits genutzte API-Schnittstelle als universell und robust erwiesen hat und umfangreiche Funktionen bereitstellt. Auf der Grundlage der umfangreichen theoretischen und praktischen Erfahrungen des CITEC mit VRTechniken wurde der Prototyp für eine virtuelle Suchumgebung realisiert, der ein Retrieval in einem Suchraum von Online-Dokumenten erlaubt. Die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer können die Suchanfrage explorativ zusammenstellen und dabei die Ergebnisse intuitiv verwalten. Unterstützt werden sie dabei durch Ergebnisanzeige, Sortierung, Optimierung des Suchergebnisses mittels Suchverfeinerung (Drilldown-basiert) oder Anfrageerweiterung und Wiederverwendung von abgelegten Ergebnissen. Gleichzeitig wird der Zugriff- und Lizenzstatus visualisiert und die Detailanzeige der Metadaten des Objektes integriert.

Footnote

Vortrag anlässlich des Bibliothekartages 2017 in Frankfurt.

0.013769808 = product of:
  0.041309424 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 4426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=4426,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4426, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4426)
    0.03417004 = weight(_text_:und in 4426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03417004 = score(doc=4426,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.3531656 = fieldWeight in 4426, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4426)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Wissen Sie, wie sich zukünftig Bibliografien, Kataloge und OPACs bedienen lassen? Wenn wir über die Zukunft von Bibliografien, Katalogen und OPACs nachdenken, denken wir dann zunächst an Medien verzeichnisse oder an offene, kommunikative Webportale, die es jedem ermöglichen, sich nach Art des Web 2.0 an der Erfassung der bibliografischen Daten zu beteiligen? Wenn wir mediale Internet angebote des Web 2.0 genauer betrachtet, bieten diese meh als lediglich die Verzeichnung von Medien. Es zeigt sich, dass angesichts aktueller Entwicklungen in Richtung Web 2.0 die Frage neu gestellt werden sollte, in welcher Form zukünftig mediografische Portale ihren Nutzen haben könnten. Beispielsweise könnte ein OPAC 2.0 jedem Interessenten einen individuellen Zugang zu einem Informationsraum offerieren, der sich funktionell ganz den eigenen Bedürfnissen und Wünschen des Bibliotheksnutzers anpasst und nicht nur Zugang zu Informationen ermöglicht, sondern auch vollmedialen Zugriff, inhaltliche Verweisfunktionen, erweiterten Service sowie Kommunikationsfunktionen. Die Antwort lautet also, dass Archive und Bibliotheken mehr über mediografische Portale nachden ken sollten und nicht über Bibliografien, Kataloge und OPACs! Eine darauf folgend wichtige Frage ist, ob diese Portale sowohl inhaltlich als auch funktionell nicht nur unseren Archiv und Bibliotheksnutzern mehr Service bieten, sondern auch einen höheren Zweck für Archive und Bibliotheken selbst darstellen? Die Online Techniken des Web 2.0 und dessen Portale offerieren virtuelle Welten und neue Möglichkeiten zum Aktiv und Produktivsein, also insgesamt zum Proaktivsein unserer Nutzer. Die Betrachtung solcher Internetangebote zeigt, dass sich mediografische Angebote bereits in einer Entwicklung befinden. Doch wenn es eine solche Entwicklung gibt, muss überlegt werden, wie Archive und Bibliotheken sich hierbei einbringen können. Somit zeichnet sich bei diesem Thema eine Brisanz ab. Denn zu bedenken ist, dass mediografische Daten bereits in Rechercheergebnissen bei Online-Datenbanken, Internet Suchmaschinen, Online Enzyklopädien oder anderen Angeboten eine Rolle spielen.

0.013322966 = product of:
  0.039968897 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
    0.032829512 = weight(_text_:und in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032829512 = score(doc=3611,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Suchmaschinen befinden sich einerseits in einem beständigen Wandel. Andererseits gibt es immer wieder Entwicklungen, die die Suche "auf eine neue Ebene" heben. Eine solche Entwicklung, die wir zurzeit erleben, wird unter dem Label "Next Generation Search Systems" geführt. Der Begriff fasst die Veränderungen durch eine Vielfalt von Geräten und Eingabemöglichkeiten, die Verfügbarkeit von Verhaltensdaten en masse und den Wandel von Dokumenten zu Antworten zusammen.

0.013036655 = product of:
  0.039109964 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=1831,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
    0.026489196 = weight(_text_:und in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026489196 = score(doc=1831,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27378 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Die Resource Description and Access (RDA) wird für den deutschsprachigen Raum das neue Regelwerk für die bibliothekarische Erschliessung der Bestände. In diesem Regelwerk wird auch die Sacherschliessung neu geregelt. Zurzeit sind diese Seiten noch leer. Doch wie soll ein Regelwerk für die Sacherschliessung aussehen? Kriterien für eine Regelung fehlen, zu stark hat sich das Umfeld der Inhaltserschliessung in den letzten Jahren geändert. Auch von der Schlagworttheorie her sind noch keine Hinweise in Sicht. Deshalb wird in verschiedenen Gremien intensiv diskutiert, wie eine zukunftsfähige Sacherschliessung aussehen könnte. In welchem Rahmen bewegt sich die Diskussion und woran soll sich die Regelwerksentwicklung für den Sachkatalog orientieren? Der Beitrag erwägt zwischen der Sachkataloggeschichte einerseits und dem modernen Datenmanagement im Netz andererseits die Bedeutung und die Rolle eines Sacherschliessungsregelwerks.
"Fazit: Die Sacherschliessung im Bibliothekskontext richtet sich nach dem Angebot und dem Zugang, den die Bibliothek bietet. Ein Regelwerk muss so gestaltet sein, dass die Bibliothek die Erschliessungstiefe selbst bestimmen kann. Im Datenaustausch macht dann die Übernahme von Fremddaten nur unter ähnlichen Bibliotheken Sinn. Metakataloge können keine sinnvollen Facetten anbieten, hier muss ein Relevanz-Ranking genügen. Dasselbe gilt für die Discovery Tools, in denen Quellen mit verschiedenen Erschliessungssystemen unter einer Oberfläche suchbar gemacht werden. In Kombination mit den Daten der Formalerschliessung sollen hingegen auch bei den Discovery Tools Filter so gestaltet sein, dass in spezifischen Beständen, die intellektuell sachlich erschlossen sind, ein Index der Schlagwörter als Themenfacetten angezeigt und genutzt werden kann. Die RDA wird dafür den Rahmen geben müssen."

0.012647232 = product of:
  0.037941694 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 4601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=4601,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4601, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4601)
    0.029017461 = weight(_text_:und in 4601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029017461 = score(doc=4601,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29991096 = fieldWeight in 4601, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4601)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) verfolgt das Ziel, den unter Culturegraph.org verfügbaren großen Datenbestand von mehr als 160 Millionen Titeldaten deutschsprachiger Bibliotheksverbünde sowie der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek und der British National Bibliography über Analysen, Verknüpfungen und Auswertungen in größerem Umfang nutzbar zu machen. Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick, welche Themenstellungen und Methoden bislang im Zentrum stehen. Dies ist einerseits die Bündelung von Werken, die erlaubt, mehrere Ausgaben, Auflagen oder Übersetzungen eines Werks zusammenzuführen. Inhaltserschließende Informationen wie Klassifikation oder verbale Erschließung, ebenso wie Normdatenverknüpfungen, können so auf alle Mitglieder eines Bündels übertragen werden, so dass ein Gewinn an Standardisierung und Erschließungstiefe zu erreichen ist. Andererseits können über bibliothekarische Daten hinaus auch externe Datenquellen zur Anreicherung herangezogen werden. Dies wird anhand eines Abgleichs von Personen in der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) und der Datenbank Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) dargestellt. Unter Verwendung der Culturegraph-Titeldaten werden Personen mittels der von ihnen verfassten Publikationen abgeglichen und zusammengeführt. Abschließend werden einige statistische Auswertungen des Datenbestandes vorgestellt.

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des 107. Deutschen Bibliothekartages 2018 in Berlin, Themenkreis "Fokus Erschließen & Bewahren". https://www.o-bib.de/article/view/5414. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2018H4S166-180.

0.012300599 = product of:
  0.036901798 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 3982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=3982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 3982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3982)
    0.026805183 = weight(_text_:und in 3982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026805183 = score(doc=3982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 3982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3982)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Der Text zeigt anhand einer essayistisch selektiven Rückschau in die Zeit vor den Digital Humanities bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftliche Ansätze zur Entwicklung hypertextueller Werkzeuge für Bibliographie-Verwaltung und Strukturierung des wissenschaftlichen Diskurses - eine zukunftsweisende Idee für eine digitale Geisteswissenschaft zur Unterstützung geisteswissenschaftlicher Denkarbeit jenseits von reinem 'distant thinking'.

Content

Beitrag in einerm Schwerpunkt "Post-Digital Humanities". Vgl.: http://libreas.eu/ausgabe30/frank/.

0.009683581 = product of:
  0.029050741 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 1948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=1948,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1948, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1948)
    0.018954126 = weight(_text_:und in 1948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018954126 = score(doc=1948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 1948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1948)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Zu den heute geforderten Funktionen von Katalogsystemen gehört das Navigieren. Auch wer dieses Wort nicht kennt, navigiert täglich, und zwar bei jedem Klick auf einen Hyperlink. Es tut somit not, dem Nutzer Hyperlinks zu präsentieren - damit er zu "Ressourcen" surfen kann, die mit dem vorher gefundenen Dokument irgendwie zusammenhängen. Hyperlinks machen sich nicht von selbst, es muß etwas dahinterstecken, am besten ein Konzept, das die Beziehungen zwischen den Dokumenten in praktikabler, plausibler Weise abbildet. Wer keine oder die falschen Beziehungen hat, den bestraft das Leben - in Katalogen ist das nicht anders.

0.004738532 = product of:
  0.02843119 = sum of:
    0.02843119 = weight(_text_:und in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02843119 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Sinn von Katalogen und Erschließung im Umfeld der Debatte RAK - AACR, MAB - MARC

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=3225,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.

Imprint

Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Libraries

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=1172,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
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.

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=3817,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.

Content

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Monash University in 2017 Faculty of Information Technology. Vgl.: https://figshare.com/articles/Models_of_the_bibliographic_universe/5216347.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=1230,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A Virtual union catalog is a possible alternative to the centralized database of distributed resources found in many library systems. Such a catalog would not be maintained in a single location but would be created in real time by searching each local campus or affiliate library's catalog through the Z39.50 protocol. This would eliminate the redundancy of record storage as well as the expense of loading and maintaining access to the central catalog. This article describes a test implementation of a virtual union catalog for the University of California system. It describes some of the differences between the virtual catalog and the existing, centralized union catalog (MELVYL). The research described in the paper suggests enhancements that must be made if the virtual union catalog is to become a reasonable service alternative to the MELVYL® catalog.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=1271,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=2429,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.0015740865 = product of:
  0.009444519 = sum of:
    0.009444519 = weight(_text_:in in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009444519 = score(doc=5013,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15905021 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.0015740865 = product of:
  0.009444519 = sum of:
    0.009444519 = weight(_text_:in in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009444519 = score(doc=3876,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15905021 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.