Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.03 
    0.02897766 = product of:
  0.05795532 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.0269173 = product of:
      0.0538346 = sum of:
        0.0538346 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0538346 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
  2. Spalding, T.: Breaking into the OPAC (2009) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Library mashups: exploring new ways to deliver library data. Ed.: N.C. Engard
  3. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.02 
    0.016690476 = product of:
  0.03338095 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.012688936 = product of:
      0.025377871 = sum of:
        0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025377871 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  4. Rodman, R.L.: Making the connection between processing and access : do cataloging decisions affect user access? (2000) 0.01 
    0.012717713 = product of:
  0.05087085 = sum of:
    0.05087085 = product of:
      0.1017417 = sum of:
        0.1017417 = weight(_text_:processing in 518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1017417 = score(doc=518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.53671354 = fieldWeight in 518, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  5. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.01 
    0.009516701 = product of:
  0.038066804 = sum of:
    0.038066804 = product of:
      0.07613361 = sum of:
        0.07613361 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07613361 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  6. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.01 
    0.007930585 = product of:
  0.03172234 = sum of:
    0.03172234 = product of:
      0.06344468 = sum of:
        0.06344468 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06344468 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.01 
    0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=1271,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.
  8. Oberhauser, O.: Card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) : an international survey (2003) 0.01 
    0.007418666 = product of:
  0.029674664 = sum of:
    0.029674664 = product of:
      0.05934933 = sum of:
        0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05934933 = score(doc=4179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper surveys card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) - online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards and more or less sophisticated mechanisms for browsing or searching. Solutions of this kind have been implemented by a number of libraries in various countries since the mid-1990s, mainly as inexpensive altematives to a full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. The article presents a Web page dedicated to CIPACs, identifies and describes four main categories of interface software for such catalogues, and provides a comparative overview of 50 CIPACs in 11 countries, looking at aspects such as geographical distribution, growth and size, software, number of catalogues, processing and index creation, navigation, image formats, and other features.
  9. Pohl, A.: OCLC, WorldCat und die Metadaten-Kontroverse (2009) 0.01 
    0.007315732 = product of:
  0.029262928 = sum of:
    0.029262928 = weight(_text_:data in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029262928 = score(doc=2780,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 2780, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2780)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    "Hintergründe Das Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) mit Sitz in Dublin (Ohio) präsentiert sich als eine Non-Profit-Mitgliederorganisation, "die sich im öffentlichen Interesse für den breiteren, computergestützten Zugang zum weltweiten Wissen und die Senkung der damit verbundenen Kosten einsetzt." Im globalen Maßstab ist OCLC die größte Organisation im Bibliothekswesen, mit knapp 70.000 Mitgliedsbibliotheken in über 100 Ländern . Das Fundament von OCLC bildet der WorldCat, dessen Konzept dem eines Verbundkatalogs entspricht: eine bibliografische Online-Datenbank für die gemeinsame Katalogisierung, in der auch die Bestandsdaten der beteiligten Bibliotheken erfasst sind. Auf dieser Datenbank baut eine große Zahl der OCLC-Dienstleistungen auf, seien dies Katalogisierungs- und Metadatendienste, Recherchewerkzeuge für Endnutzer, Fernleihdienste oder Bestandsanalyse- und -managementwerkzeuge. Für die Teilnahme am WorldCat sowie die Fremddatenübernahme aus dem WorldCat berechnet OCLC den Mitgliedsinstitutionen nicht unbeträchtliche Summen. Die Einnahmen aus WorldCat-Gebühren und Fremddatendiensten machen mehr als ein Drittel der Gesamteinnahmen OCLCs aus: Im Steuerjahr 2007/2008 betrugen die Einnahmen OCLCs aus Metadatendiensten nach Unternehmensangaben 85,8 Millionen US-$. Das sind knapp 35% der Gesamteinnahmen von 246,4 Millionen US-$ im selben Jahr.6 Man kann OCLC also ein großes finanzielles Interesse daran unterstellen, diesen Datenpool weiterhin unter eigener Kontrolle zu halten, damit die gewohnten Gewinnströme nicht versiegen. Vor diesem Hintergrund nimmt es nicht wunder, dass OCLC versucht eine Policy einzuführen, welche die Geldströme auch in Zukunft sichern soll. Mit der Ankündigung dieser rechtsverbindlichen Regelung hat OCLC Anfang November 2008 die Gemüter kritischer Bibliothekare und von Open-Data-Verfechtern erhitzt. Viele Passagen der Policy erwecken den Eindruck, dass sich OCLC ein Monopol auf die WorldCat-Daten sichern will und Konkurrenz auszuschalten versucht. Die Reaktionen - besonders in der US-amerikanischen Blogosphäre - waren harsch, wodurch bereits einige Änderungen der Policy erreicht worden sind. Mitte Januar hat OCLC nun als Erwiderung auf die vehemente Kritik den geplanten Termin des Inkrafttretens der Policy nach hinten verlegt: von Mitte Februar auf das Dritte Quartal 2009. Mit dem Review "Board of Shared Data Creation and Stewardship" hat OCLC zudem ein Gremium einberufen, das indessen mit OCLC-Mitgliedern und anderen Beteiligten in Kontakt treten soll, um den Policy-Entwurf zu überarbeiten."
  10. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.01 
    0.006344468 = product of:
  0.025377871 = sum of:
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  11. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.01 
    0.006344468 = product of:
  0.025377871 = sum of:
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  12. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.01 
    0.006344468 = product of:
  0.025377871 = sum of:
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.01 
    0.006344468 = product of:
  0.025377871 = sum of:
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
  14. Erdei, K.: Kein Umzug für Zettel : Die digitalisierten Kataloge im Neubau der UB Kiel (2001) 0.01 
    0.0055514094 = product of:
  0.022205638 = sum of:
    0.022205638 = product of:
      0.044411276 = sum of:
        0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044411276 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5777, 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=5777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    28. 4.2001 16:49:22
  15. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.01 
    0.0055514094 = product of:
  0.022205638 = sum of:
    0.022205638 = product of:
      0.044411276 = sum of:
        0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044411276 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  16. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01 
    0.0055514094 = product of:
  0.022205638 = sum of:
    0.022205638 = product of:
      0.044411276 = sum of:
        0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044411276 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  17. Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009) 0.01 
    0.005299047 = product of:
  0.021196188 = sum of:
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.
  18. Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.01 
    0.0051730038 = product of:
  0.020692015 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  19. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.00 
    0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
  20. Neubauer, W.: Von Bibliothekskatalogen zu Wissensportalen (2006) 0.00 
    0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2008 12:40:17

Authors

Languages

  • e 18
  • d 9

Types

  • a 24
  • b 3
  • m 3
  • el 2
  • r 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes