Search (200 results, page 1 of 10)

0.055000786 = product of:
  0.19250274 = sum of:
    0.01423575 = weight(_text_:of in 1715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01423575 = score(doc=1715,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1715, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1715)
    0.17826699 = sum of:
      0.10687792 = weight(_text_:service in 1715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10687792 = score(doc=1715,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043909185 = queryNorm
          0.56807995 = fieldWeight in 1715, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1715)
      0.071389064 = weight(_text_:22 in 1715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071389064 = score(doc=1715,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043909185 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1715, 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=1715)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: Select newsletter 1998, no.22, S.8 (P. Robinson)

Imprint

Boston Spa : British Library, National Bibliographic Service

0.049203813 = product of:
  0.114808895 = sum of:
    0.01814709 = weight(_text_:of in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01814709 = score(doc=1271,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26429096 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.07405595 = weight(_text_:congress in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07405595 = score(doc=1271,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.35355577 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.022605859 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022605859 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.13063091 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

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.

Editor

Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

0.03434028 = product of:
  0.12019098 = sum of:
    0.018568728 = weight(_text_:of in 2560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018568728 = score(doc=2560,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2560, 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=2560)
    0.101622246 = weight(_text_:distribution in 2560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101622246 = score(doc=2560,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24019864 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42307585 = fieldWeight in 2560, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2560)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

We observe that the convergence patterns of pages in the PageRank algorithm have a nonuniform distribution. Specifically, many pages converge to their true PageRank quickly, while relatively few pages take a much longer time to converge. Furthermore, we observe that these slow-converging pages are generally those pages with high PageRank.We use this observation to devise a simple algorithm to speed up the computation of PageRank, in which the PageRank of pages that have converged are not recomputed at each iteration after convergence. This algorithm, which we call Adaptive PageRank, speeds up the computation of PageRank by nearly 30%.

0.033355568 = product of:
  0.11674448 = sum of:
    0.024456458 = weight(_text_:of in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024456458 = score(doc=2627,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
    0.092288025 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092288025 = score(doc=2627,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.53329843 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.

Imprint

Los Angeles : California Univ., Inst. of Library Research

Issue

Final report. Phase I: Descriptive cataloging.

0.03187536 = product of:
  0.11156376 = sum of:
    0.02324688 = weight(_text_:of in 8313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02324688 = score(doc=8313,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 8313, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8313)
    0.08831687 = weight(_text_:congress in 8313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08831687 = score(doc=8313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42163986 = fieldWeight in 8313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8313)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Discusses articles in which indexing of image collections receives virtually no mention and continues with comments about articles in which indexing receives special attention. Describes four major indexing systems: Library of Congress, AAT, ICONCLASS and TELCLASS. Discusses new indexing approaches where the use of descriptive words is being replaced by other methods of retrieval. Describes indexing by content (attempting to match an input image to a database collection) and by using a visual thesaurus. Raises questions about indexing for various kinds of collections and discusses indexing philosophy

0.02789094 = product of:
  0.09761828 = sum of:
    0.02034102 = weight(_text_:of in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034102 = score(doc=367,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
    0.07727726 = weight(_text_:congress in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07727726 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36893487 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The study of subject access to UK academic library catalogues was based on a questionnaires end out during Summer 1991. 86 out of a possible 110 questionnaires were returned. All universities and polytechniques now have OPACs which are progressing well towards comprehensive bibliographical coverage of their libraries' stocks. The MARC format is now widely used. Subject access strategies are usually based on either Library of Congress Subject Headings or inhouse indexing systems but almost half the OPACs studies have no separate subject searching option based on subject indexing is expensive and future subject indexing strategies are best based on pre-existing controlled vocabularies. Strategies authority control is essential. A limited range of software strategies is recommended including the need to limit search results

0.02756855 = product of:
  0.09648992 = sum of:
    0.021054957 = weight(_text_:of in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021054957 = score(doc=2417,freq=70.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3066406 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          8.3666 = tf(freq=70.0), with freq of:
            70.0 = termFreq=70.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.07543496 = weight(_text_:distribution in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07543496 = score(doc=2417,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24019864 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3140524 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using "simple and objective" methods is increasingly prevalent today. The "simple and objective" methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded. - Relying on statistics is not more accurate when the statistics are improperly used. Indeed, statistics can mislead when they are misapplied or misunderstood. Much of modern bibliometrics seems to rely on experience and intuition about the interpretation and validity of citation statistics. - While numbers appear to be "objective", their objectivity can be illusory. The meaning of a citation can be even more subjective than peer review. Because this subjectivity is less obvious for citations, those who use citation data are less likely to understand their limitations. - The sole reliance on citation data provides at best an incomplete and often shallow understanding of research - an understanding that is valid only when reinforced by other judgments. Numbers are not inherently superior to sound judgments.
Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.
The validity of statistics such as the impact factor and h-index is neither well understood nor well studied. The connection of these statistics with research quality is sometimes established on the basis of "experience." The justification for relying on them is that they are "readily available." The few studies of these statistics that were done focused narrowly on showing a correlation with some other measure of quality rather than on determining how one can best derive useful information from citation data. We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research.citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information. We recognize that assessment must be practical, and for this reason easily-derived citation statistics almost surely will be part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. We hope those involved in assessment will read both the commentary and the details of this report in order to understand not only the limitations of citation statistics but also how better to use them. If we set high standards for the conduct of science, surely we should set equally high standards for assessing its quality.

Imprint

Joint IMU/ICIAM/IMS-Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research : o.O.

0.024918856 = product of:
  0.08721599 = sum of:
    0.011863125 = weight(_text_:of in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011863125 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
    0.07535286 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07535286 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.43543637 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The guidelines are a response to 2 interconnected problems: little bibliographic control exists for electronic texts, and the AACR2 standards for control of computer files are not entirely satisfactory

0.024679614 = product of:
  0.08637865 = sum of:
    0.018981 = weight(_text_:of in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018981 = score(doc=2429,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.06739765 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06739765 = score(doc=2429,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.38946614 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.023265846 = product of:
  0.08143046 = sum of:
    0.018981 = weight(_text_:of in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018981 = score(doc=5013,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
    0.062449455 = weight(_text_:congress in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062449455 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2981444 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.019815719 = product of:
  0.06935501 = sum of:
    0.015916053 = weight(_text_:of in 3331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015916053 = score(doc=3331,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 3331, 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=3331)
    0.05343896 = product of:
      0.10687792 = sum of:
        0.10687792 = weight(_text_:service in 3331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10687792 = score(doc=3331,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.56807995 = fieldWeight in 3331, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Describes a project aimed at setting up a 1 stop scientific, technical and commerical information service for technical companies at Belasis Hall Technology Park, Cleveland, UK. The project accomplished this by: identifying the information needs of the existing and potential tenants; establishing how best to meet those needs (paying a special attention to the role of online information) and setting up a 1 year pilot project: disseminating the results of the project for replication elsewhere and making information provision an integral part of science park design; promoting information as a basis for problem solving and decision making; promoting close links with the users; determining which sources and methods of delivery are most relevant (patents, trade directories, market research reports, online searches); developing a charging policy for the service with a view to the service becoming self financing; increasing the partners' experience in resource sharing; developing a training needs analysis for both providers and users; developing performance indicators; and monitoring the service provided

0.018594287 = product of:
  0.06508 = sum of:
    0.020547535 = weight(_text_:of in 8000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020547535 = score(doc=8000,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 8000, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8000)
    0.044532467 = product of:
      0.08906493 = sum of:
        0.08906493 = weight(_text_:service in 8000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08906493 = score(doc=8000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.47339994 = fieldWeight in 8000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: Library review 42(1993) no.5, S.62-63 (G. Muirhead); Journal of librarianship and information science. 1993, Dec., S.214-215 (A.M.H. Langballe)

Imprint

Boston Spa : Bristish Library National Bibliographic Service

0.018407404 = product of:
  0.064425915 = sum of:
    0.02034102 = weight(_text_:of in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034102 = score(doc=654,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
    0.04408489 = product of:
      0.08816978 = sum of:
        0.08816978 = weight(_text_:service in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08816978 = score(doc=654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.46864203 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Reports on an empirical investigation to measure the quality of the information services that are available to the commercial and industrial sectors in Northern Ireland. Examines the quality management practices of the business information providers and evaluates the quality of information and support as perceived by the business community. Develops and tests a new general survey instrument (P-C-P), as an alternative to SERVQUAL, that hat the ability to measure the quality gap that exists between the customers' expectations of these information services and their perceptions of the actual service that is received

0.01840563 = product of:
  0.0644197 = sum of:
    0.026632648 = weight(_text_:of in 755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026632648 = score(doc=755,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 755, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=755)
    0.03778705 = product of:
      0.0755741 = sum of:
        0.0755741 = weight(_text_:service in 755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0755741 = score(doc=755,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.40169317 = fieldWeight in 755, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Report results of a survey of abstracting and indexing services, published in CD-ROM format, by a sample of 109 secondary service publishers. One of the main aims of the survey was to determine the impact that provision of secondary services as CD-ROM databases has had on other product printed and online formats, especially in terms of the generation of income. Confidential information regarding income from the 3 specific product formats was obtained from UK and US publishers of CD-ROM databases, for the years 1987 to 1992, with 1992 figures provided as an estimate. Presents a detailed breakdown, expressed as percentages of total income derived from each of the 3 formats, for 18 specific databases, grouped according to perceived migration characteristics. Other information includes: price comparison of the 3 product formats; use of third parties for CD-ROM production; lease and licensing agreements; and the implication for the UK research associations

0.017352995 = product of:
  0.060735475 = sum of:
    0.025109503 = weight(_text_:of in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025109503 = score(doc=358,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 358, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=358)
    0.03562597 = product of:
      0.07125194 = sum of:
        0.07125194 = weight(_text_:service in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07125194 = score(doc=358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.37871996 = fieldWeight in 358, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Reports on a British Library Research and Innovation Centre supported examination of Current Awareness Services combined with Individual Article Supply (CASIAS). Reports 2 surveys of the academic research community at Aston University, UK, which: provided data about the usage levels of locally available services, and information about users' attitudes to, and use of, services, their reactions and resistance to CASIAS services in general, their general patterns of literature use, and their ideal services. Discusses the implications of their provision for both libraries and service providers

0.017243307 = product of:
  0.060351573 = sum of:
    0.02465704 = weight(_text_:of in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465704 = score(doc=6158,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
    0.035694532 = product of:
      0.071389064 = sum of:
        0.071389064 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071389064 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

Imprint

Cranfield : College of Aeronautics

0.01710664 = product of:
  0.059873234 = sum of:
    0.0094905 = weight(_text_:of in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0094905 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
    0.050382733 = product of:
      0.10076547 = sum of:
        0.10076547 = weight(_text_:service in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10076547 = score(doc=2132,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.5355909 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This short guide describes the process for creating a CD-ROM based üublic access catalog. The authors admit that the material will be outdated by the time of publication, because product specifics change so rapidly. The report is useful, but not completely thorough. Disadvantages to using CD-ROM for public access catalog are listed, but existing methods to overcome these hindrances are not mentioned. The paper also touches on the possibility that CD-ROM-based catalogs may be more than simply an extra service, that they may become full-service catalogs in themselves

0.016643427 = product of:
  0.058251992 = sum of:
    0.016608374 = weight(_text_:of in 3473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016608374 = score(doc=3473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 3473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3473)
    0.04164362 = product of:
      0.08328724 = sum of:
        0.08328724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08328724 = score(doc=3473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3473, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3473)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Pages

22 S

0.015183869 = product of:
  0.05314354 = sum of:
    0.021970814 = weight(_text_:of in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021970814 = score(doc=1614,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1614, 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=1614)
    0.031172724 = product of:
      0.06234545 = sum of:
        0.06234545 = weight(_text_:service in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06234545 = score(doc=1614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.33137995 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Reports results of a project to develop guidelines, based on the development of a prototype system in the field of medicine, for producing computerized reference services capable of increasing the range and quality of responses to information needs. For instance, an automatic system that can be available 24 hours a day simultaneously to multiple enquirers over an intranet or the Internet. Genuine information requests from a variety of medical information settings were collected and analyzed to form a typology of needs, focusing particularly on qualitative aspects. The typology was mapped on to computerized techniques to form a system specification and developed into a prototype WWW system

0.01487543 = product of:
  0.052064 = sum of:
    0.016438028 = weight(_text_:of in 5988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016438028 = score(doc=5988,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5988, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5988)
    0.03562597 = product of:
      0.07125194 = sum of:
        0.07125194 = weight(_text_:service in 5988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07125194 = score(doc=5988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.37871996 = fieldWeight in 5988, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The library technology industry, broadly speaking, shows more affinity toward utility than innovation. Library automation systems are not necessarily exciting technologies, but they are workhorse applications that must support the complex tasks of acquiring, describing, and providing access to materials and services. They represent substantial investments, and their effectiveness is tested daily in the library. But more than efficiency is at stake: These products must be aligned with the priorities of the library relative to collection management, service provision, and other functions.