Search (209 results, page 1 of 11)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Whitney , C.; Schiff, L.: ¬The Melvyl Recommender Project : developing library recommendation services (2006) 0.09
    0.0949631 = product of:
      0.1899262 = sum of:
        0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035423465 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
        0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036299463 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
        0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013388081 = score(doc=1173,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
        0.10481519 = sum of:
          0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.018727465 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
          0.086087726 = weight(_text_:line in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.086087726 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.37175092 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.
  2. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.04
    0.044648297 = product of:
      0.089296594 = sum of:
        0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041327372 = score(doc=5365,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
        0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020662563 = score(doc=5365,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  3. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.04
    0.043445066 = product of:
      0.08689013 = sum of:
        0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050096344 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
        0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013388081 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Allen, L.: Towards a learning catalogue : developing the next generation of library catalogues (1993) 0.04
    0.039769273 = product of:
      0.07953855 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=8192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=8192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
        0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022201622 = score(doc=8192,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=8192,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Contends that library catalogues need to be seen as merely part of the information seeker's world and proposes the concept of a learning catalogue for library clients which will capture ways in which clients use data thus providing ideas for the further development of the system. Proposes a client centred system which is separated to maintain the bibliographic database from the mode of presentation of that data to the client. The designer of retrieval systems, by accepting that each client brings a unique view of the world's knowledge base to the information seeking activity, needs to acknowledge that this view of the world must be handled uniquely. By overlaying the idea of a learning component, it is possible to see how future queries might be handled more efficiently and the system can grow with client's developing needs
    Footnote
    Paper presented at the 10th National Cataloguing Conference on Subject to change: subject access and the role of the cataloguer, Freemantle, Western Australia, 4-6 Nov 93
  5. Randall, N.B.: Spelling errors in the database : shadow or substance? (1999) 0.04
    0.03699629 = product of:
      0.07399258 = sum of:
        0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029222867 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
        0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017463053 = score(doc=106,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  6. Bergman, O.; Gradovitch, N.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Beyth-Marom, R.: Folder versus tag preference in personal information management (2013) 0.04
    0.035284847 = product of:
      0.09409293 = sum of:
        0.059039105 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059039105 = score(doc=1103,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
        0.013664153 = weight(_text_:of in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013664153 = score(doc=1103,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.1995-2012
  7. Hider, P.; Tan, K.-C.: Constructing record quality measures based on catalog use (2008) 0.03
    0.03143663 = product of:
      0.08383101 = sum of:
        0.057394497 = weight(_text_:use in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057394497 = score(doc=2724,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.45389885 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
        0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014968331 = score(doc=2724,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
        0.011468184 = product of:
          0.022936368 = sum of:
            0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022936368 = score(doc=2724,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Approaches to the measurement of catalog record quality are discussed. The systematic application of specific evaluation criteria may be more reliable than expert opinion, if not necessarily more accurate, and the construction of an error weightings table based on empirical investigation into catalog use is described. Although this process proved to be complex, and involved significant methodological problems, it was shown to be readily achievable. As catalog use may in many cases be insufficiently uniform across libraries to allow for generic evaluation criteria, it is proposed that cataloging managers construct their own set by studying the impact that record quality has on the particular use of their own catalogs. Thus more empirical research into catalog use is advocated, in order to supplement expert opinion and to build toward a practice of evidence-based cataloging.
  8. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.03
    0.031286977 = product of:
      0.062573954 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
        0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017640345 = score(doc=190,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=190,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale": papers from the ALCTS preconference, June 26, 1998 "What in the World...Cataloging on an International Scale". ALCTS Preconference, Washington, D.C.
  9. Joint, N.: URLs in the OPAC : comparative reflections on US vs UK practice (2007) 0.03
    0.031082064 = product of:
      0.082885504 = sum of:
        0.051335193 = weight(_text_:use in 857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051335193 = score(doc=857,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40597942 = fieldWeight in 857, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=857)
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=857,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 857, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=857)
        0.011468184 = product of:
          0.022936368 = sum of:
            0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022936368 = score(doc=857,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 857, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=857)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - To examine whether placing URLs into library OPACs has been an effective way of enhancing the role of the catalogue for the contemporary library user. Design/methodology/approach - A brief review of the literature combined with an analysis of publicly available statistics for library use in the USA and the UK. Findings - That certain ways of placing URLs into the OPAC are loosely associated with a successful library environment, i.e. with constant or increasing levels of stock circulation and OPAC use, while other forms of hyper-linking OPAC records are loosely associated with declining levels of library use. Research limitations/implications - The loose association between different OPAC management practices and apparent statistical trends of library use could be investigated in greater depth by further subsequent research, but along the lines and methodology suggested herein. Practical implications - Firm suggestions on how to place and manage URLs in the online catalogue are made. Originality/value - This paper takes certain catalogue enhancement practices which are identified with the US library environment and investigates them in a UK, and specifically Scottish context, to shed light on the original US ideas behind these practices.
  10. Fattahi, R.: Library cataloguing and abstracting and indexing services : reconciliation of principles in the online environment (1998) 0.03
    0.0304716 = product of:
      0.081257604 = sum of:
        0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029222867 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
        0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022089208 = score(doc=2587,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    With the ever-increasing developments in information technology and networks, end users of the online environment now have integrated access to a variety of bibliographic databases, mainly library catalogues and A&I services, from a single terminal. While such a facility influences users' expectations and preferences in the searching, retrieval and presentation of bibliographic information, it raises an important question as to whether different bibliographic practices can use a similar or compatible set of principles for creating bibliographic records and files. This paper is an attempt to identify areas of possible reconciliation and also address some of the implications of such an issue.
  11. Taniguchi, S.: ¬A conceptual model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity in cataloging (2002) 0.03
    0.030303044 = product of:
      0.12121218 = sum of:
        0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016396983 = score(doc=4463,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
        0.10481519 = sum of:
          0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.018727465 = score(doc=4463,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
          0.086087726 = weight(_text_:line in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.086087726 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.37175092 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper proposes a conceptual model for cataloging which gives primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity, with the aim of approaching critical issues in cataloging, such as the so-called "format variations" and "content versus carrier" issues. The term "expression" is defined as "the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, etc." In this paper, the model by the IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is first re-examined and at the same time the outline of a new model giving primacy to expression-level entity is illustrated by indicating differences from the FRBR model. Second, by applying the concept "user tasks," found in the FRBR model, to the new model outlined in this paper, a scenario on how entities are used by users is created. Third, some examples of bibliographic record equivalents in line with the new model are shown.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.4, S.363-382
  12. Stoker, D.: Computer cataloguing in retrospect (1997) 0.03
    0.028556665 = product of:
      0.05711333 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
        0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0167351 = score(doc=605,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 29(1997) no.4, S.175-177
  13. Barton, J.; Mak, L.: Old hopes, new possibilities : next-generation catalogues and the centralization of access (2012) 0.03
    0.028069302 = product of:
      0.074851476 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=5560,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=5560,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
        0.024135707 = weight(_text_:of in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024135707 = score(doc=5560,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Next-generation catalogues can be viewed as the latest manifestation of a tendency in library catalogue history to strive for centralization of access to collections-a single portal for the discovery of library resources. Due to an increasing volume of published materials and the explosion of online information resources during the Internet age, the library does not currently provide centralized access to its various information silos, nor does it provide a user-friendly search and retrieval experience for users whose expectations are shaped by Google and other major commercial Web sites. Searching across library resources is a complicated task, bearing high-attention "transaction costs" for the user, which discourage the use of library resources. Libraries need access systems that minimize complexity, easing discovery and delivery of resources for user populations. Here, the authors review past efforts of centralization of access, consider the potential of next-generation catalogues in the context of this historical tendency toward centralization of access, and describe what goals underlie that centralization.
  14. Solis, A.Q.; Navarrete, O.A.: Medidas de calidad en la creacion de catalogos de bibliotecas (1998) 0.03
    0.028015025 = product of:
      0.07470673 = sum of:
        0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029222867 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
        0.025901893 = weight(_text_:of in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025901893 = score(doc=2825,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2825, 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=2825)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    A discussion of the importance of clear cataloguing policies and routines as the basis of quality control, in relation to the methods used in the College of Mexico Library. The fundamental principle is to prevent errors occuring rather than to correct them subsequently. Indices of quality and effiency in relation to errors which do and do not affect retrieval, established through monthly review of samples of the work of each cataloguer, are used to monitor activities and ensure high standards. This process, essentially collaborative, promotes an overall culture of quality
    Date
    30. 1.1999 19:22:45
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Measures of quality in the creation of library catalogues
  15. Cochrane, P.A.: 34th UIUC clinic highlights visualizing subject access (1997) 0.03
    0.026718706 = product of:
      0.07124988 = sum of:
        0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04338471 = score(doc=377,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
        0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016396983 = score(doc=377,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
        0.011468184 = product of:
          0.022936368 = sum of:
            0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022936368 = score(doc=377,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Reports on the 34th Annual Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, held 2-4 Mar 1997 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The clinic was entitled 'Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources'. Summarizes the following individual sessions: Visual browsing for information retrieval; Hypostatizing data collections, especially bibliographic; Simultaneous searching of distributed information and subject repositories on the WWW; Information filtering from multiple sources; Thesauri in the full text world; The role of controlled vocabulary in visualizing document associations; Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval; Spatial abilities and visualizations; Using IODyne as an indexing tool; Knowledge structures for information visualizing; Visualizing digital libraries; what role for the OPAC?; How will we provide subject access in the Interspace of the 21st century?; Natural language processing based information retrieval; Building and accessing vocabulary resources for networked resource discovery and navigation; Using electronic services to become an interbetworked business; and Conference Wrap up
  16. Martin, S.K.: ¬The union catalogue : summary and future directions (1982) 0.03
    0.026250094 = product of:
      0.07000025 = sum of:
        0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023188837 = score(doc=290,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
        0.013242318 = product of:
          0.026484637 = sum of:
            0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026484637 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.033569098 = product of:
          0.067138195 = sum of:
            0.067138195 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.067138195 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, 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=290)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Date
    6. 1.2007 14:49:22
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as The Future of the Union Catalogue: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Future of the Union Catalogue
  17. Han, M.-J.: New discovery services and library bibliographic control (2012) 0.03
    0.025167283 = product of:
      0.06711275 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
        0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016396983 = score(doc=5569,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    To improve resource discovery and retrieval, libraries have implemented new discovery services, such as next generation catalogues, federated search, and Web-scale discovery, in addition to their traditional integrated library systems. These new discovery services greatly improve the user experience by utilizing existing cataloguing records housed within the library system or in combination with metadata from other sources, both in and outside of libraries. However, to maximize the functionality of these discovery services, libraries must reexamine current cataloguing practices and the way libraries control the bibliographic description to better serve the user's needs. This report discusses how new discovery services use the cataloguing records and the challenges that libraries encounter in bibliographic control to work with new discovery services, including the quality of cataloguing records, granular levels of bibliographic description, and integration of user-generated metadata into the cataloguing records. Each of these aspects requires further discussion.
  18. Bourdenet, P.: ¬The catalog resisting the Web : an historical perspective (2012) 0.03
    0.025128856 = product of:
      0.100515425 = sum of:
        0.009662016 = weight(_text_:of in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009662016 = score(doc=324,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1496253 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
        0.09085341 = sum of:
          0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.01911364 = score(doc=324,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
          0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07173977 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries are currently seeking to restructure their services and develop new cataloguing standards to position themselves on the web, which has become the main source of information and documents. The current upheaval within the profession is accompanied by the belief that libraries have a major role to play in identifying and supplying content due to their extensive high quality databases, which remain untapped despite efforts to increase catalog performance. They continue to rely on a strategy that has been proven successful since the mid-nineteenth century while seeking other models for their data. Today, they aim to exploit changes brought about by the web to improve content identification. The current intense debate on RDA implementation mirrors this desire for change. The debate is rooted in past efforts and yet tries to incite radical changes as it provides for interoperability from the creation of records through an object modeling in line with web standards and innovations. These innovations are presented through an historical perspective inspired by writings by librarians who are entrusted with helping in the development of bibliographic description standards.
  19. Hillmann, D.I.: 'Parallel universes' or meaningful relationships : envisioning a future for the OPAC and the net (1996) 0.02
    0.023645371 = product of:
      0.06305432 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
        0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013526822 = score(doc=3656,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Briefly follows the debate concerning: the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the WWW; possible replacement of USMARC format with SGML; and the possible demise of OPACs that do not migrate to the WWW. Discusses the approach taken by the Text encoding Initative (TEI) in their use of a mandatory TEI header in their standard SGML application as the first since CIP to explore attaching bibliographic information to the item itself to assist cataloguing
    Series
    Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4
  20. Barrett, B.B.: Hit rates with the OCLC CD450 cataloging system : a test with recent, academic approval books (1990) 0.02
    0.023642108 = product of:
      0.06304562 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=504,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
        0.024135707 = weight(_text_:of in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024135707 = score(doc=504,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
        0.013242318 = product of:
          0.026484637 = sum of:
            0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026484637 = score(doc=504,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The work begins by reviewing publications on the use of optical-disc technology in cataloging departments. This section includes descriptive information on specific products and comparative considerations on the value of the CD genre. Most commentary to date seems to find cost advantages to the optical format for smaller libraries but fewer attractions for larger institutions who would lose online immediacy. An outline of the design and results of the OCLC test follows along with various tables showing the class makeup of the overall sample, the hit-rate for the two vendors, and other data. Most of the sample consisted of English-language titles that would support the general academic mission of a variety of disciplines. Well over 90% of the titles searched had MARC records on discs within two issues or three months. Although concluding that departments acquiring over 5000 titles per year may find online utilities more effective, the article still urges a careful analysis of laser cataloging products with a variety of acquisition samples and for a variety of libraries.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types