Search (46 results, page 1 of 3)

0.032637153 = product of:
  0.13054861 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=1177,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=1177,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Michigan State University Libraries (MSUL) digital repository contains numerous collections of openly available material. Since 2016, the digital repository has been using Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject headings as its primary subject vocabulary in order to streamline faceting, display, and search. The MSUL FAST use case presents some challenges that are not addressed by existing MARC-focused FAST tools. This paper will outline the MSUL digital repository team's justification for including FAST headings in the digital repository as well as workflows for adding FAST headings to Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) metadata, their maintenance, and utilization for discovery.

0.027283307 = product of:
  0.10913323 = sum of:
    0.059839215 = weight(_text_:case in 2011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059839215 = score(doc=2011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 2011, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2011)
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 2011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=2011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 2011, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2011)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This document presents: a brief overview of FAST; a brief analysis of common characteristics of parties that have either chosen to adopt FAST or chosen against using FAST; suggested improvements for FAST vocabulary and services; tables summarizing FAST adopters and non-adopters; and sixteen individual "case studies" presented as edited write-ups of interviews.

0.023077954 = product of:
  0.092311814 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The constantly changing metadata landscape means that libraries need to re-think their approach to standards and subject analysis, to enable the discovery of vast areas of both print and digital content. This article presents a case study from the British Library that assesses the feasibility of adopting FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) to selectively extend the scope of subject indexing of current and legacy content, or implement FAST as a replacement for all LCSH in current cataloging workflows.

0.01950733 = product of:
  0.07802932 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 7238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=7238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 7238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7238)
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 7238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=7238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7238, 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=7238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

22. 4.1997 20:43:23

0.018943653 = product of:
  0.07577461 = sum of:
    0.040918473 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040918473 = score(doc=5570,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3143245 = fieldWeight in 5570, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5570)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=5570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5570)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the standard subject language used in library catalogues, are often criticized for their lack of currency, biased language, and atypical syndetic structure. Conversely, folksonomies (or tags), which rely on the natural language of their users, offer a flexibility often lacking in controlled vocabularies and may offer a means of augmenting more rigid controlled vocabularies such as LCSH. Content analysis studies have demonstrated the potential for folksonomies to be used as a means of enhancing subject access to materials, and libraries are beginning to integrate tagging systems into their catalogues. This study examines the utility of tags as a means of enhancing subject access to materials in library online public access catalogues (OPACs) through usability testing with the LibraryThing for Libraries catalogue enhancements. Findings indicate that while they cannot replace LCSH, tags do show promise for aiding information seeking in OPACs. In the context of information systems design, the study revealed that while folksonomies have the potential to enhance subject access to materials, that potential is severely limited by the current inability of catalogue interfaces to support tag-based searches alongside standard catalogue searches.

0.009449717 = product of:
  0.07559773 = sum of:
    0.07559773 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07559773 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.5807211 = fieldWeight in 2898, 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=2898)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Research libraries in OCLC: a quarterly. 5(1982), S.1-7

0.008714033 = product of:
  0.06971227 = sum of:
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=2852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Studies the salient features of ordinary language as a means of designing languages for information storage and retrieval systems. Pays particular attention to the POPSI (Postulate-based Permuted Subject Indexing) language.

0.008352448 = product of:
  0.066819586 = sum of:
    0.066819586 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066819586 = score(doc=4137,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.51328975 = fieldWeight in 4137, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4137)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

1. Aufl. unter: Aluri, R.D., A. Kemp u. J.J. Boll: Subject analysis in online catalogs. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited 1991. XII,303 S. ISBN 0-87287-670-5

Imprint

Englewood, CO : Libraries Unlimited

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=1050,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SOMMERVILLE, I., M. WOOD: A software components catalogue; COELHO, H.: Library manager: a case study in knowledge engineering; DAVIES, R.: Cataloguing as a domain for an expert system; POLLITT, A.S.: A rule-base system as an intermediary for searching cancer therapy literature on MEDLINE; LEBOWITZ, M.: An experiment in intelligent information systems: RESEARCHER; VICKERY, A., H.M. BROOKS u. B.C. VICKERY: An expert system for referral: the PLEXUS project; RICH, E.: Users are individuals: individualizing user models; INGWERSEN, P.: Cognitive analysis and the role of the intermediary in information retrieval; SHAW, M.L.G. u. B.R. GAINES: A cognitive model for intelligent information systems; DAVIES, R.: Classification and ratiocination: a perennial quest

0.007160733 = product of:
  0.057285864 = sum of:
    0.057285864 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057285864 = score(doc=6941,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4400543 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Explores the question of whether academic libraries keep up with the changes in the LCSH system. Analysis of the handling of 15 subject headings in 50 academic library catalogues available via the Internet found that libraries are not consistently maintaining subject authority control, or making syndetic references and scope notes in their catalogues. Discusses the results from the perspective of the libraries' performance, performance on the headings overall, performance on references, performance on the type of change made to the headings,a nd performance within 3 widely used onlien catalogue systems (DRA, INNOPAC and NOTIS). Discusses the implications of the findings in relationship to expressions of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of subject cataloguing expressed by discussion groups on the Internet

0.0069712265 = product of:
  0.055769812 = sum of:
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 25(1988), S.215-227

0.0066819587 = product of:
  0.05345567 = sum of:
    0.05345567 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05345567 = score(doc=5072,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 5072, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5072)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Computers in libraries international 91. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Computers in Libraries, London, February 1991

0.006099823 = product of:
  0.048798583 = sum of:
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 2007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=2007,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 2007, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2007)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In their 2005 study, Gross and Taylor found that more than a third of records retrieved by keyword searches would be lost without subject headings. A review of the literature since then shows that numerous studies, in various disciplines, have found that a quarter to a third of records returned in a keyword search would be lost without controlled vocabulary. Other writers, though, have continued to suggest that controlled vocabulary be discontinued. Addressing criticisms of the Gross/Taylor study, this study replicates the search process in the same online catalog, but after the addition of automated enriched metadata such as tables of contents and summaries. The proportion of results that would be lost remains high.

0.0058467137 = product of:
  0.04677371 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

2. Aufl. unter: Olson, H.A., J.J. Boll: Subject access in online catalogs. 2nd ed. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited 2001. xv, 333 S. ISBN 1-56308-800-2

Imprint

Englewood, CO : Libraries Unlimited

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=5567,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Subject searching is difficult with traditional text-based online public access library catalogues (OPACs), and the next-generation discovery layers are keyword searching and result filtering tools that offer little support for subject browsing. Next-generation OPACs ignore the rich network of relations offered by controlled subject vocabulary, which can facilitate subject browsing. A new generation of OPACs could leverage existing information-organization investments and offer online searchers a novel browsing and searching environment. This is a case study of the design and development of a virtual reality subject browsing and information retrieval tool. The functional prototype shows that the Library of Congress subject headings (LCSH) can be shaped into a useful and usable tree structure serving as a visual metaphor that contains a real world collection from the domain of science and engineering. Formative tests show that users can effectively browse the LCSH tree and carve it up based on their keyword search queries. This study uses a complex information-organization structure as a defining characteristic of an OPAC that goes beyond the standard keyword search model, toward the cutting edge of online search tools.

0.00522842 = product of:
  0.04182736 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article reports on a comparison of the postcoordinate retrieval effectiveness of two indexing languages: LCSH and PRECIS. The effect of augmenting each with title words was also studies. The database for the study was over 15.000 UK MARC records. Users returned 5.326 relevant judgements for citations retrieved for 61 SDI profiles, representing a wide variety of subjects. Results are reported in terms of precision and relative recall. Pure/applied sciences data and social science data were analyzed separately. Cochran's significance tests for ratios were used to interpret the findings. Recall emerged as the more important measure discriminating the behavior of the two languages. Addition of title words was found to improve recall of both indexing languages significantly. A direct relationship was observed between recall and exhaustivity. For the social sciences searches, recalls from PRECIS alone and from PRECIS with title words were significantly higher than those from LCSH alone and from LCSH with title words, respectively. Corresponding comparisons for the pure/applied sciences searches revealed no significant differences

0.005114809 = product of:
  0.040918473 = sum of:
    0.040918473 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040918473 = score(doc=4307,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3143245 = fieldWeight in 4307, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4307)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The construction and updating of indexing languages depend on the organization of their hierarchical structures in order to determine the classification of related terms and, above all, to allow a constant updating of vocabulary, a condition for knowledge evolution. The elaboration of an indexing language for online catalogs of libraries' networks is important considering the diversity and specificity of knowledge areas. From this perspective, the present paper reports on the work of a team of catalogers and researchers engaged in the construction of a hierarchical structure of an indexing language for an online catalog of a university library's network. The work on hierarchical structures began by defining the categories and subcategories that form the indexing language macrostructure by using the parameters of the Library of Congress Subject Headings , the National Library Terminology and the Vocabulary of the University of São Paulo Library's system. Throughout the stages of the elaboration process of the macrostructure, difficulties and improvements were observed and discussed. The results enabled the assessment of the hierarchical structures of the languages used in the organization of the superordinate and subordinate terms, which has contributed to the systematization of operational procedures contained in an indexing language manual for online catalogs of libraries.

0.005011469 = product of:
  0.040091753 = sum of:
    0.040091753 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040091753 = score(doc=1165,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

University of Victoria Libraries has implemented faceted vocabularies, particularly FAST, in its digital collections platform (Vault). The process involved migrating a variety of standardized (pre-coordinated Library of Congress subject headings) and non-standardized metadata to conform to a URI-centric metadata application profile. The authors argue that faceted vocabularies and FAST have helped to create a robust and intuitive user navigation in the platform and allowed for an efficient and straightforward metadata creation process. Maintaining FAST as linked data within Vault has required putting in place some technical processes to keep URIs and textual labels up to date and solutions (FAST Updater) have been locally developed.

0.0047248583 = product of:
  0.037798867 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=4549,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 4549, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4549)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper attempts to explain the wide dissemination of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) within digital libraries and presents some of the advantages and disadvantages of using this controlled vocabulary in digital collections. The paper also presents other classifications used in digital collections for subject access and explores ways of improving search functionality in digital collections that employ LCSH. Design/methodology/approach - Unlike traditional libraries that use Library of Congress Classification for organization and retrieval, digital libraries use metadata forms for organization and retrieval. The collections exist in cyberspace of the internet which is known for containing the universe of knowledge. The use of LCSH for information retrieval has been widely criticized for its difficulty of use and its information retrieval effectiveness in online environments. The Library of Congress (LOC) has claimed the headings were not based on comprehensive principles nor ever intended to cover the universe of knowledge. Despite these claims and criticisms, LCSH is the most popular choice for subject access in digital libraries. Findings - The number of digital collections increases every year and LCSH is still the most popular choice of controlled vocabulary for subject access. Of the numerous criticisms, difficulties of use and user unfamiliarity are the greatest disadvantages of using LCSH for subject access. Average users only have a vague notion of what they are looking for when initializing a search. More work is required in automated generation of subject headings and increased usage of LCSH in faceted search retrieval systems. This will provide users with better access to the LCSH used in the back end of information retrieval. Originality/value - The Greek researchers who developed the Dissertation DSPace system believe this type of module will eventually replace the traditional keyword-based indexing back ends employed by many information retrieval modules within current digital library systems. The system offers the type of access and interactivity that will acquaint users with how LCSH looks and is used. Faceted search and automated pattern matching using an ontology based on LCSH have the best promise of overcoming the disadvantages that have always plagued the LOC-controlled vocabulary. These retrieval techniques give LCSH an opportunity to finally achieve the optimal precision and recall it has so far failed to deliver.

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=2249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Contribution to the ongoing debate on the French subject headings list RAMEAU, which has been much criticised as time consuming and inflexible. Proposed technical solutions to recurring problems with complex syntax, strucutre of hierarchical and associative links, and rigity of language are discussed, in the context of computerised cataloguing and retrieval using OPACs. As a universal indexing language RAMEAU is more appropriate for medium sized specialised libraries and specialist researchers. However the 2 possible subject indexing techniques, linguistic treatment of whole text and thesaurus, are now beginning to be viewed as complementary approaches