Search (46 results, page 1 of 3)

0.015412329 = product of:
  0.061649315 = sum of:
    0.061649315 = weight(_text_:digitale in 4765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061649315 = score(doc=4765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18027179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.34197983 = fieldWeight in 4765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4765)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Als Otlet und La Fontaine um 1900 den Begriff Bibliographie durch den moderneren Begriff Dokumentation ersetzten und im Sinne einer Dokumentationswissenschaft von Dokumentologie sprachen, um damit auch den Weg zu öffnen, immer mehr "Neue Medien", wie Lochkartensysteme, Filme, Mikrofiches, Schallplatten, Magnetbandaufzeichnungen, etc. in die bibliothekarische Wissensbewahrung zu integrieren, da geriet das Bibliothekswesen in eine Zerreißprobe, die für Deutschland besonders nachhaltig war. Eigentlich war es nur ein Zeichen dafür, dass die Bibliothekswissenschaft plötzlich eine so große Dynamik bekam, dass ein Teil ihrer Vertreter sich immer stärker an den rasanten Entwicklungen dieser "Neuen Medien", dann an den informationsverarbeitenden Maschinen und an der Digitalisierung orientierten, während sich andere um so mehr darum bemühten, alte Erfahrungen und das bereits etablierte Wissen nicht dem Untergang preis zu geben. Diese Zerreißprobe hat zunächst auch international eine tiefe Spaltung zwischen Dokumentation und Bibliothekswesen hervorgebracht. Die "alte" Bibliothek erschien zunehmend "verstaubt" gegenüber der modernen Dokumentation, die ihrerseits allerdings einen Namen trug, der sich als Berufsbild in der breiten Bevölkerung nie so recht durchsetzen konnte. Heute hat die Digitale Bibliothek beide wieder vereinigt und damit das Berufsbild Dokumentar auf einen speziellen Bereich, der Erschließung nicht publizierter Dokumente, neben dem Archivar fokussiert.

0.014946922 = product of:
  0.029893843 = sum of:
    0.025687214 = weight(_text_:digitale in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025687214 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18027179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1424916 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
    0.0042066295 = weight(_text_:information in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042066295 = score(doc=4880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.068573356 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Diese Einführung in die moderne Katalogkunde ist nicht nur für angehende Bibliothekare und Angehörige informationsbezogener Berufe gedacht, sie gilt auch allen interessierten Laien, die sich für eine professionelle Nutzung von Katalogen, insbesondere solchen in Form von Online-Datenbanken, im Bibliotheksbereich interessieren. Die Bibliothek ist eine Einrichtung zur Orientierung in einer Publikationsflut; aber nicht nur in Form einer «Positiv-Auswahl»: Sie stellt auch Information bereit, die man nach kurzer Prüfung verwirft oder die im Laufe des wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts falsifiziert wurde. Sie ist so auch Staumauer zur Eindämmung der Informationsüberflutung des Einzelnen, unabhängig vom aktuellen Nachfrage- oder Marktgeschehen. Insofern war sie auch immer eine Abwehr gegen Schund - und sei es nur durch dessen erbarmungsloser Dokumentation, und Bestandteil eines Controlling gegen schlechte und überflüssige Wissenschaft. Es ist daher auch die zentrale Aufgabe einer Katalogisierung, dazu beizutragen. Noch deutlicher gesagt, ist es weniger die Aufgabe der Bibliothekskataloge, uns zu zeigen, was wir alles lesen können, das sind allein etwa 100 Mio. verschiedene Buchtitel, es ist vielmehr ihre Aufgabe uns zu zeigen, was wir alles nicht lesen müssen, weil es bessere Quellen gibt. Diese Zeitersparnis ist insbesondere im Wettbewerb um das neu zu entdeckende Wissen in der Wissenschaft das höchste Gut, das wir haben, und Wissenschaft würde ohne diese Hilfe unbezahlbar. Es sei an eine mittlerweile rund 50 Jahre alte Maxime des großen indischen Bibliothekars und Bibliothekswissenschaftlers S.R. RANGANATHAN erinnert, die er (etwas irreführend) als ein «Gesetz der Bibliothekswissenschaft» bezeichnete: «Save the time of the reader. » Es ist aber auch für den Leser von Belletristik, für die Auswahl von Videofilmen oder Kinderbüchern nicht weniger wichtig, was man liest. So zitiert A. v. Harnack keinen geringeren als Leibniz mit den Worten «man weis, was bisweilen ein baar Bücher für Schaden gethan!'»
Lesen hat mit Bildung zunächst nichts zu tun, es kommt darauf an, was man liest, und das wird nicht zuletzt von Katalogen beeinflusst. Wenn hier von Bibliotheken und Katalogen die Rede ist, mag der Leser und die Leserin bei Ersterem unwillkürlich an konkrete papierene Objekte denken, nämlich Bücher. Die Zahl derer hingegen, die mit «Katalog» Karteikarten verbinden, wird schon viel bescheidener ausfallen, denn wir benutzen heute selbstverständlich elektronische Datenbanken als Kataloge. Aber ebenso selbstverständlich gibt es nicht den geringsten systematischen Grund, im Folgenden digitale Bibliotheken auszuschließen. Im einfachsten Fall liegen zu den bibliographischen Informationen in einer Datenbank zugleich die zugehörigen Buchtexte vor, in welcher konkreten Form auch immer. Die Bibliothekare von heute haben es mit einer Vielzahl von Katalogen in Form von Bandkatalogen, Datenbanken, Karteien, Mikrofiches oder Multimedialen Katalogen zu tun, wobei sie immer mehr Datenbanken weltweit online erreichen. So wie wir in der Bibliotheksverwaltung (Ewert, G. und Umstätter, W. 1997) von einer Verwaltung im engeren und im erweiterten Sinne sprechen können, so müssen wir zwischen Katalogen unterscheiden, die den eigenen Besitz und solchen, die das verfügbare Wissen und die publizierte Information weiterer Einrichtungen oder sogar der ganzen Welt erschließen. Im ersten Fall sprechen wir von den Katalogen im engeren Sinne. Im zweiten Fall haben wir es einerseits mit der Zusammenführung von verschiedenen Bibliothekskatalogen zu tun, z.B. in Katalogisierungsverbünden oder sogenannten Internetportalen, und andererseits mit den meist thematisch ausgerichteten Datenbanken, die nicht selten aus den früheren Bibliographien hervorgegangen sind. Bei ihnen eine sogenannte Verlinkung mit den eigentlichen Quellen herzustellen ist oft leicht möglich. Die heutige Datenbanktechnik, die hinter modernen Katalogen steht, ergänzt stärker als je zuvor unser Gedächtnis, weil wir aus Volltext- und Multimediadatenbanken jederzeit gezielt all das abrufen können, was uns momentan nicht präsent ist. Wir können dies allerdings nur dann abrufen, wenn wir Wissen darüber besitzen, was abrufbar und wie es abrufbar ist. Zu dieser Grundlage will das vorliegende Buch beitragen. Schon die Griechen erkannten die fundamentale Bedeutung des geschriebenen Wortes als ein Langzeitgedächtnis, das unsere Erinnerung ins scheinbar Unendliche erweitert. Der Mythos von Theut beschäftigte sich mit der damit verbundenen Problematik. Aber erst die Daten- und Wissensbanken unserer Zeit schaffen die Möglichkeit, sich auch ganz gezielt zu erinnern. Sie bieten uns nicht nur die Möglichkeit bestimmte Bücher, sondern auch Aufsätze in Zeitschriften und inzwischen sogar einzelne Sätze bzw. Zitate zu finden.

0.012843607 = product of:
  0.051374428 = sum of:
    0.051374428 = weight(_text_:digitale in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051374428 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18027179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2849832 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Wer wissenschaftliche Informationen und Fachliteratur sucht, kommt mit einer herkömmlichen Internet-Suchmaschine nicht weit. Auch Bibliothekskataloge und Datenbanken helfen nur begrenzt weiter, da es zu viele Anlaufstellen im Web gibt. Das Hochschulbibliothekszentrum NRW (hbz) arbeitet deshalb an der technischen Infrastrukturlösung eines gemeinsamen Suchraums. Der Suchraum fasst mithilfe modernster Suchmaschinentechnologie viele unterschiedliche Datenquellen zu einem optimierten Index zusammen, der von verschiedenen Suchanwendungen in Sekundenschnelle abgefragt werden kann. Zu den Datenbeständen des Suchraums gehören die Kataloge der deutschsprachigen Bibliotheken sowie Artikel aus den Wissenschaftszeitschriften. Hinzu kommen Abstracts, Inhaltsverzeichnisse und andere Informationen. Ergänzt wird dieser Suchindex durch einen Zugriff auf Fachdatenbanken, die zum Beispiel das vascodaProjekt zusammenträgt. Die Suchanwendungen wie beispielsweise die Portal-Lösung »DigiBib - Die Digitale Bibliothek« müssen nur noch den einheitlich aufgebauten Index durchsuchen und erhalten die Ergebnisse nach wenigen Millisekunden. In der Realität existiert eine solche virtuelle Metabibliothek nur in den Anfängen. Der Dreiländerkatalog des hbz und das Wissenschaftsportal vascoda sind ein großer Schritt auf dem Weg zu diesem gemeinsamen Suchraum. Er kann nur durch eine - inhaltlich und geografisch-weiträumige Kooperation der Universitäten, Bibliotheken, Verlage und anderer Anbieter von Fachinformationen der deutschsprachigen Länder aufgebaut werden. Die Grundlagen für dieses Ziel wurden bereits vom hbz gelegt. Die Teilnahme am Suchraum ist eine lohnende Aufgabe für die Bibliotheken und Wissenschaftsorganisationen: Am Ende steht eine wissenschaftliche Suchmaschine, die alle wichtigen und nützlichen Datenquellen erfasst."

0.0064218035 = product of:
  0.025687214 = sum of:
    0.025687214 = weight(_text_:digitale in 634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025687214 = score(doc=634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18027179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1424916 = fieldWeight in 634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=634)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Wünsche an die Supersuchmaschine Ein erster Wunsch aus Lesersicht lautet: Endlich her mit dem Gesamtkatalog aller deutschsprachigen Bibliotheken inklusive sämtlicher Artikel der Wissenschaftszeitschriften. Und es sollten auch gleich die Inhaltsverzeichnisse der Bücher mit rein, sowie ein paar Leseproben und was die deutschen Verlage sonst noch kostenlos im Internet anbieten. Noch ein Wunsch: Schön wäre ein Zugriff auf die Bestände der Pressearchive, die bis in die 1990er Jahre zurückreichen. Und ebenso auf Fachdatenbanken wie die ECONIS-Bibliographie der Wirtschaftswissenschaftler oder die Bestände der Deutschen Zentralbibliothek für Medizin. Auch das so genannte "Deep Web" gehört in diese Supersuchmaschine: Diejenigen wissenschaftlichen Fachdatenbanken, die z.B. im vascoda-Projekt zusammengetragen werden und die bei herkömmlichen Internet-Suchmaschinen in der Regel nicht erscheinen. In der Realität existiert eine solche virtuelle Metabibliothek wenigstens schon in den Anfängen. Der Dreiländerkatalog des hbz und das Wissenschaftsportal vascoda sind ein großer Schritt auf dem Weg zu etwas, das sich am besten mit "gemeinsamer Suchraum" umschreiben lässt. Technisch gesehen ist er ein riesiger Index ausgewählter und auf Qualität geprüfter Datenquellen, der auf eine Anfrage innerhalb von Millisekunden Ergebnisse auswirft. Ausblick auf den Suchraum Der Suchraum fasst mithilfe modernster Suchmaschinentechnologie die Daten der beteiligten Datenquellen zu einem optimierten Index zusammen, der sehr schnell durchsucht werden kann. Er verbindet dadurch zwei Vorteile: Die Benutzer müssen nur noch eine Datenbasis durchsuchen und erhalten die Ergebnisse bereits nach wenigen Millisekunden. Aus der Sicht der Benutzer ist er eine rein wissenschaftliche Suchmaschine. Diese liefert als zentrale Anlaufstelle relevante Informationen, die diesen Ehrentitel auch verdienen: Wo sind die Erstdrucke archiviert, in welchen Zeitschriften sind Forschungstexte erschienen, bei welchen Bibliotheken finde ich die Fachliteratur, welche Websites informieren über den aktuellen Forschungsstand, wo gibt es Diskussionslisten oder vielleicht sogar einen dem Thema gewidmeten Lehrstuhl? Dank einer Anbindung an die vorhandene Portal-Lösung "DigiBib - Die Digitale Bibliothek" kann die Literatur direkt oder per Fernleihe in der hiesigen Bibliothek bestellt werden - auch Aufsätze aus Zeitschriften. Der Kauf im Buchhandel ist ebenso möglich wie eine automatische Abrechnung von Gebühren, denn einige Datendienste sind kostenpflichtig. Der Software für den gemeinsamen Suchraum ist außerdem bekannt, ob der Anwender alle Inhalte nutzen darf und ob er nur bestimmte Dokumente abrufen kann.

0.0058892816 = product of:
  0.023557127 = sum of:
    0.023557127 = weight(_text_:information in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023557127 = score(doc=659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information outlook. 4(2000) no.7, S.18-24

0.004164351 = product of:
  0.016657405 = sum of:
    0.016657405 = weight(_text_:information in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016657405 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Medford, N.J. : Information Today

0.0039907596 = product of:
  0.015963038 = sum of:
    0.015963038 = weight(_text_:information in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015963038 = score(doc=54,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.

Source

Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=1119,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

0.0033653039 = product of:
  0.013461215 = sum of:
    0.013461215 = weight(_text_:information in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013461215 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.

0.003091229 = product of:
  0.012364916 = sum of:
    0.012364916 = weight(_text_:information in 5430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012364916 = score(doc=5430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5430)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

0.003091229 = product of:
  0.012364916 = sum of:
    0.012364916 = weight(_text_:information in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012364916 = score(doc=101,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=5390,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Managing cataloging and the organization of information: philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century. Part II: Specialized and academic libraries in the United States"

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=2843,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=2939,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1392-1406

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=2627,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0025501337 = product of:
  0.010200535 = sum of:
    0.010200535 = weight(_text_:information in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010200535 = score(doc=1172,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16628155 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper reports an a study that examined the parameters provided in the online catalogue of a university library for defining its collection and subcollections that would facilitate information seeking. Taking a user-centered approach, the study asked two questions: (1) Does the online catalogue provide a useful collection structure for the users? (2) Are there any parameters that are considered useful by the users for structuring the collection absent from the online catalogue? The online catalogue was found to adequately provide only a few of the user collection and subcollection parameters, including user privilege and document type. However, it lacked most of the important parameters required by the users, including catalogue representation of the entire collection and disciplinary categories for defining subject subcollections.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.

0.002185829 = product of:
  0.008743316 = sum of:
    0.008743316 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008743316 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.14252704 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.