Search (57 results, page 1 of 3)

0.04055674 = product of:
  0.12167022 = sum of:
    0.12167022 = sum of:
      0.07551802 = weight(_text_:librarians in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07551802 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.3464393 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.0461522 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0461522 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.036416866 = product of:
  0.10925059 = sum of:
    0.10925059 = sum of:
      0.07628473 = weight(_text_:librarians in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07628473 = score(doc=420,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.34995657 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
      0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032965858 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.01758179 = product of:
  0.052745372 = sum of:
    0.052745372 = product of:
      0.105490744 = sum of:
        0.105490744 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105490744 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.01758179 = product of:
  0.052745372 = sum of:
    0.052745372 = product of:
      0.105490744 = sum of:
        0.105490744 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105490744 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.014384385 = product of:
  0.043153156 = sum of:
    0.043153156 = product of:
      0.08630631 = sum of:
        0.08630631 = weight(_text_:librarians in 6396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08630631 = score(doc=6396,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.39593065 = fieldWeight in 6396, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6396)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library catalogues have existed for centuries, but only in recent times have attempts been made to evaluate their effectiveness as finding tools. Librarians want to know how well the catalogue performs, how it is used and with what success, and its major problems and limitations. Discusses evaluation of library catalogues from the users' point of view and describes the functions of the catalogue, methods for evaluation and their characteristics

0.013186343 = product of:
  0.03955903 = sum of:
    0.03955903 = product of:
      0.07911806 = sum of:
        0.07911806 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07911806 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, 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=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.013186343 = product of:
  0.03955903 = sum of:
    0.03955903 = product of:
      0.07911806 = sum of:
        0.07911806 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07911806 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.013186343 = product of:
  0.03955903 = sum of:
    0.03955903 = product of:
      0.07911806 = sum of:
        0.07911806 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07911806 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, 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=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.0127141215 = product of:
  0.038142364 = sum of:
    0.038142364 = product of:
      0.07628473 = sum of:
        0.07628473 = weight(_text_:librarians in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07628473 = score(doc=2843,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.34995657 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.012586337 = product of:
  0.03775901 = sum of:
    0.03775901 = product of:
      0.07551802 = sum of:
        0.07551802 = weight(_text_:librarians in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07551802 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.3464393 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines the future for catalogues and cataloguers. Traces developments over the last decade: automation, networks, search and retrieve protocols and pwerful new PCs, which have forced and enabled massive cataloguing changes. Librarians have been good at adapting to new situations, but they have not accepted the standards developed for manual systems are not always applicable to today's automated systems. Discusses how new standards and systems can be developed to be of more relevance. Cataloguers need to be aware of the increasing digitization of material, and its impact in research and libraries, and be prepared to play their part in developing new information retrieval systems

0.012586337 = product of:
  0.03775901 = sum of:
    0.03775901 = product of:
      0.07551802 = sum of:
        0.07551802 = weight(_text_:librarians in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07551802 = score(doc=5613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.3464393 = fieldWeight in 5613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Cataloguing has always depended on choices made by non cataloguers and it has been driven by technology. Technological innovations expand the range of materials requiring bibliographic control and also improve the quality of that control. In the near future, economic factors will constrain opportunities to continue improving quality. Technological factors will continue to broaden demands on cataloguers. Inability to continue expanding the revenue streams of supporting institutions will limit cataloguer's efforts while rapid growth of information bearing technology, particularly on networks, will inflate demands for cataloguing. Librarians must develop expanded skills with automation networks and modern software systems if they are to maintain control

0.012586337 = product of:
  0.03775901 = sum of:
    0.03775901 = product of:
      0.07551802 = sum of:
        0.07551802 = weight(_text_:librarians in 5515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07551802 = score(doc=5515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.3464393 = fieldWeight in 5515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Communities and Technologies: Realities, Challenges, and Opportunities for Librarians in Cuba'.

0.012586337 = product of:
  0.03775901 = sum of:
    0.03775901 = product of:
      0.07551802 = sum of:
        0.07551802 = weight(_text_:librarians in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07551802 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.3464393 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Genre/Form headings are an important means by which librarians provide users with contextual or descriptive information. To facilitate the discovery of resources with important provenance characteristics, the Marion E. Wade Center added terms from a controlled vocabulary to bibliographic records representing items in the C. S. Lewis personal library collection. The selected terms focus on features that have historically been of interest to visitors. The addition of these headings in the bibliographic records allows users to use these keywords to conduct a search or narrow their results, resulting in more flexibility to locate and select the resources that best meet their needs.

0.010988619 = product of:
  0.032965858 = sum of:
    0.032965858 = product of:
      0.065931715 = sum of:
        0.065931715 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065931715 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243

0.010988619 = product of:
  0.032965858 = sum of:
    0.032965858 = product of:
      0.065931715 = sum of:
        0.065931715 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065931715 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.010988619 = product of:
  0.032965858 = sum of:
    0.032965858 = product of:
      0.065931715 = sum of:
        0.065931715 = weight(_text_:22 in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065931715 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 4.2020 20:22:29

0.01078829 = product of:
  0.032364868 = sum of:
    0.032364868 = product of:
      0.064729735 = sum of:
        0.064729735 = weight(_text_:librarians in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064729735 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.296948 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Presentation given at a French Librarians Association study day on 'The future of cataloguing / Catalogues of the future', held in June 1996 at the BNF

0.01078829 = product of:
  0.032364868 = sum of:
    0.032364868 = product of:
      0.064729735 = sum of:
        0.064729735 = weight(_text_:librarians in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064729735 = score(doc=1788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.296948 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of an analysis of 205 randomly selected records from the OCLC OLUC, to test the assumption that online catalogues have greatly improved subject searching capabilities, over card catalogues, by making other fields in the records searchable as subject access points (SAPs). Results showed considerable overlap (duplication) among the SAPs provided by the title, subject heading and classification number fields. On average, little more than 4 unique, unduplicated access points were found per record. Where title and classification number fields do add some access points not provided by subject headings, the increase is less than many librarians might be expected. Suggests that OPACs might outperform catalogues more in precision than in recall by allowing greater discrimination in searching; terms from different fields may be combined; titles offer greater specifity; searches can be limited by date, language or other criteria

0.01078829 = product of:
  0.032364868 = sum of:
    0.032364868 = product of:
      0.064729735 = sum of:
        0.064729735 = weight(_text_:librarians in 4624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064729735 = score(doc=4624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.296948 = fieldWeight in 4624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The foundations of the card catalogue, catalogue use studies what can be conjectured about user needs suggest that future catalogues, as they are made possible throught the manipulations of computerized bibliographic records, ought not to take a single format. The concept of the main entry will no longer be valid at this point and multiple access points will be possible. Machine based systems will allow librarians to construct a series of catalogues to meet user needs. Proposes that there might be 3 catalogue levels of varying form and size to meet the needs of different levels of use and types of users: librarian's catalogue with full details; general user's catalogue, a location tool; and individual user's catalogue, full records in particular fields. Users could add their own material to their own catalogues and SDI via a message device would be possible

0.01078829 = product of:
  0.032364868 = sum of:
    0.032364868 = product of:
      0.064729735 = sum of:
        0.064729735 = weight(_text_:librarians in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064729735 = score(doc=240,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.296948 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents several reflections on the traditional card catalogues and RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is "the" standard for creating the Semantic Web. This work grew out of discussion between the authors after Working Group on Metadata Schemes meeting held at IFLA conference in Buenos Aires (2004). The paper provides an overview of RDF from the perspective of cataloguers, catalogues and library cards. The central theme is the discussion of resource description as a discipline that could be based on RDF. RDF is explained as a very simple grammar, using metadata and ontologies to semantic search and access. RDF Knitting the Semantic Web Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Volume 43, Numbers 3/4 has the ability to enhance 21st century libraries and metadata interoperability in digital libraries, while maintaining the expressive power that was available to librarians when catalogues were physical artefacts.