Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030740852 = product of:
  0.061481703 = sum of:
    0.061481703 = product of:
      0.122963406 = sum of:
        0.122963406 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.122963406 = score(doc=3882,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.71860564 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Imprint

? : Arts Libraries Society of America

Source

Authority control symposium: proceedings of the 14th annual conference of the Arts Libraries Society of America

0.026892643 = product of:
  0.053785287 = sum of:
    0.053785287 = product of:
      0.10757057 = sum of:
        0.10757057 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10757057 = score(doc=5805,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.628649 = fieldWeight in 5805, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on the results of focused group interviews conducted by OCLC of library users and OPACs. Library users, library public and technical services staff at six libraries were interviewed. Details their neeeds and perceptions

Footnote

Reprinted from: Information technology and libraries 2(1983) no.4, S.381-387

Source

Information technology and libraries. 12(1993) no.1, S.87-92

0.024842361 = product of:
  0.049684722 = sum of:
    0.049684722 = product of:
      0.099369444 = sum of:
        0.099369444 = weight(_text_:libraries in 356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099369444 = score(doc=356,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.5807211 = fieldWeight in 356, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=356)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 7(1988), S.299-312

0.024842361 = product of:
  0.049684722 = sum of:
    0.049684722 = product of:
      0.099369444 = sum of:
        0.099369444 = weight(_text_:libraries in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099369444 = score(doc=785,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.5807211 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 2(1983), S.381-387

0.024842361 = product of:
  0.049684722 = sum of:
    0.049684722 = product of:
      0.099369444 = sum of:
        0.099369444 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099369444 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.5807211 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021737067 = product of:
  0.043474134 = sum of:
    0.043474134 = product of:
      0.08694827 = sum of:
        0.08694827 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08694827 = score(doc=2087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.50813097 = fieldWeight in 2087, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 4(1985), S.107 -

0.0124211805 = product of:
  0.024842361 = sum of:
    0.024842361 = product of:
      0.049684722 = sum of:
        0.049684722 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049684722 = score(doc=1060,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 1060, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 8(1989), S.203-209

0.009315886 = product of:
  0.018631771 = sum of:
    0.018631771 = product of:
      0.037263542 = sum of:
        0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037263542 = score(doc=384,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 384, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the DDC Online Project, subject searching and browsing of DDC schedules and relative index were featured in an experimental online catalog. The effectiveness of this DDC in an online catalog was tested in online retrieval experiments at four participating libraries. These experiments provided data for analyses of subject searchers' use of a library classification in the information retrieval environment of an online catalog. Recommendations were provided for the enhancement of bibliographic records, online catalogs, and online cataloging systems with a library classification. In this paper, subject searchers' use of the subject outline search capability of the experimental online catalog is described. This capability was unique to the experimental online catalog and all other online catalogs, because it referred searchers to online displays of the classification schedules based on their entry of subject terms. Failure analyses of subject outline searches demonstrated its specific strenghts and weaknesses. Users' postsearch interview comments highlighted their experiences and their satisfaction with this search. Based on the failure analyses and users' interview comments, recommendations are provided for the improvement of the subject outline search in online catalogs.

0.0054342668 = product of:
  0.0108685335 = sum of:
    0.0108685335 = product of:
      0.021737067 = sum of:
        0.021737067 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021737067 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.12703274 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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.