Search (228 results, page 1 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. White, R.W.: Interactions with search systems (2016) 0.12 
    0.12461829 = product of:
  0.27416024 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.011426214 = weight(_text_:of in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011426214 = score(doc=3612,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.07616316 = weight(_text_:technological in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07616316 = score(doc=3612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41510788 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.12470941 = weight(_text_:innovations in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12470941 = score(doc=3612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5311756 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
  0.45454547 = coord(5/11)
    Abstract
    Information seeking is a fundamental human activity. In the modern world, it is frequently conducted through interactions with search systems. The retrieval and comprehension of information returned by these systems is a key part of decision making and action in a broad range of settings. Advances in data availability coupled with new interaction paradigms, and mobile and cloud computing capabilities, have created a broad range of new opportunities for information access and use. In this comprehensive book for professionals, researchers, and students involved in search system design and evaluation, search expert Ryen White discusses how search systems can capitalize on new capabilities and how next-generation systems must support higher order search activities such as task completion, learning, and decision making. He outlines the implications of these changes for the evolution of search evaluation, as well as challenges that extend beyond search systems in areas such as privacy and societal benefit.
    LCSH
    Search engines / Technological innovations
    Subject
    Search engines / Technological innovations
  2. Meyer, R.W.: ¬The cataloger's future : a director's view (1997) 0.10 
    0.096553504 = product of:
  0.26552212 = sum of:
    0.0130612515 = weight(_text_:of in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0130612515 = score(doc=5613,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5613, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5613)
    0.10662842 = weight(_text_:technological in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10662842 = score(doc=5613,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.581151 = fieldWeight in 5613, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5613)
    0.12345601 = weight(_text_:innovations in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12345601 = score(doc=5613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.525837 = fieldWeight in 5613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5613)
    0.022376444 = weight(_text_:on in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022376444 = score(doc=5613,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 5613, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5613)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    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
  3. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.04 
    0.044180106 = product of:
  0.12149529 = sum of:
    0.07492303 = weight(_text_:effect in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07492303 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.01727841 = weight(_text_:of in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01727841 = score(doc=5365,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.016374804 = product of:
      0.03274961 = sum of:
        0.03274961 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03274961 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    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.
  4. Bryant, P.: Making the most of our libraries (1997) 0.04 
    0.043369085 = product of:
  0.15901998 = sum of:
    0.12762953 = weight(_text_:higher in 2439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12762953 = score(doc=2439,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.7036407 = fieldWeight in 2439, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2439)
    0.0184714 = weight(_text_:of in 2439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0184714 = score(doc=2439,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 2439, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2439)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 2439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=2439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2439)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Reports results of the 2 studies: "Retrospective conversion of library catalogues in institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom: a study of the justification for a national programme" and "Retrospective conversion for libraries in the UK other than those funded by the Higher Education Funding Councils". The latter study was on behalf of libraries other than national ones: public; learned and scientific society; professional; and religious. Covers: the scale of UK retrospective conversion issues, opportunities and need for a national strategy; retrospective conversion in an international context; conversion of library catalogues in UK higher education institutions; and catalogues in other UK libraries
  5. Randall, N.B.: Spelling errors in the database : shadow or substance? (1999) 0.04 
    0.043207202 = product of:
  0.1188198 = sum of:
    0.07492303 = weight(_text_:effect in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07492303 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.014602924 = weight(_text_:of in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014602924 = score(doc=106,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.016374804 = product of:
      0.03274961 = sum of:
        0.03274961 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03274961 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  6. Bourdenet, P.: ¬The catalog resisting the Web : an historical perspective (2012) 0.04 
    0.040574223 = product of:
  0.14877215 = sum of:
    0.008079554 = weight(_text_:of in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008079554 = score(doc=324,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1496253 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
    0.12470941 = weight(_text_:innovations in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12470941 = score(doc=324,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5311756 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=324,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Libraries are currently seeking to restructure their services and develop new cataloguing standards to position themselves on the web, which has become the main source of information and documents. The current upheaval within the profession is accompanied by the belief that libraries have a major role to play in identifying and supplying content due to their extensive high quality databases, which remain untapped despite efforts to increase catalog performance. They continue to rely on a strategy that has been proven successful since the mid-nineteenth century while seeking other models for their data. Today, they aim to exploit changes brought about by the web to improve content identification. The current intense debate on RDA implementation mirrors this desire for change. The debate is rooted in past efforts and yet tries to incite radical changes as it provides for interoperability from the creation of records through an object modeling in line with web standards and innovations. These innovations are presented through an historical perspective inspired by writings by librarians who are entrusted with helping in the development of bibliographic description standards.
  7. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.04 
    0.039127994 = product of:
  0.107601985 = sum of:
    0.044661034 = weight(_text_:higher in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044661034 = score(doc=1271,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24622294 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.014271337 = weight(_text_:of in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014271337 = score(doc=1271,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.26429096 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.012380512 = weight(_text_:on in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012380512 = score(doc=1271,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.16301158 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.036289107 = weight(_text_:great in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036289107 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.18663573 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    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.
    Editor
    Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
  8. Wynne, S.C.; Hanscom, M.J.: ¬The effect of next-generation catalogs on catalogers and cataloging functions in academic libraries (2011) 0.04 
    0.036965135 = product of:
  0.13553883 = sum of:
    0.105957165 = weight(_text_:effect in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105957165 = score(doc=1889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5793189 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
    0.011311376 = weight(_text_:of in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011311376 = score(doc=1889,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
    0.01827029 = weight(_text_:on in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01827029 = score(doc=1889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Next-generation catalogs or discovery tools (NGCs) overlay existing bibliographic data and repackage it in displays that differ from the traditional catalog. Many implementations of NGCs have revealed errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the underlying data that had not been apparent in the traditional catalog. This study explored the effect of NGCs on cataloging functions and catalogers in academic libraries, examining catalogers' participation in the selection and implementation processes, identifying and correcting data problems, changes to procedures or workflow, and staffing.
  9. Libraries and Google (2005) 0.04 
    0.03582962 = product of:
  0.09853145 = sum of:
    0.009140971 = weight(_text_:of in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009140971 = score(doc=1973,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.16928169 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.030465262 = weight(_text_:technological in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030465262 = score(doc=1973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.16604315 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.04988376 = weight(_text_:innovations in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04988376 = score(doc=1973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21247023 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.009041448 = weight(_text_:on in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009041448 = score(doc=1973,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.11904682 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Google[trademark] has become a nearly omnipresent tool of the Internet, with its potential only now beginning to be realised. How can librarians effectively integrate this powerful search engine to provide service to their patrons? "Libraries and Google[trademark]" presents leading authorities discussing the many possibilities of using Google products as effective, user-friendly tools in libraries. Google Scholar and Print are extensively explored with an eye towards offering an expanded view of what is and may be possible for the future, with practical insights on how to make the most of the product's capabilities.
    Content
    Introduction: Libraries and Their Interrelationships with Google - William Miller Disruptive Beneficence: The Google Print Program and the Future of Libraries - Mark Sandler The Google Library Project at Oxford - Ronald Milne The (Uncertain) Future of Libraries in a Google World: Sounding an Alarm - Rick Anderson A Gaggle of Googles: Limitations and Defects of Electronic Access as Panacea - -Mark Y. Herring Using the Google Search Appliance for Federated Searching: A Case Study - Mary Taylor Google's Print and Scholar Initiatives: The Value of and Impact on Libraries and Information Services - Robert J. Lackie Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the Performance of Schoogle - Burton Callicott; Debbie Vaughn Google, the Invisible Web, and Librarians: Slaying the Research Goliath - Francine Egger-Sider; Jane Devine Choices in the Paradigm Shift: Where Next for Libraries? - Shelley E. Phipps; Krisellen Maloney Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library - Maurice C. York Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use - Janice Adlington; Chris Benda Running with the Devil: Accessing Library-Licensed Full Text Holdings Through Google Scholar - Rebecca Donlan; Rachel Cooke Directing Students to New Information Types: A New Role for Google in Literature Searches? - Mike Thelwall Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy Rachael Cathcart - Amanda Roberts Optimising Publications for Google Users - Alan Dawson Google and Privacy - Paul S. Piper Image: Google's Most Important Product - Ron Force Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack - Michael J. Krasulski; Steven J. Bell
    Footnote
    Co-published simultaneously as Internet reference services quarterly, vol. 10(1005), nos. 3/4 Rez. in: ZfBB 54(2007) H.2, S.98-99 (D. Lewandowski): "Google und Bibliotheken? Meist hat man leider den Eindruck, dass hier eher ein oder gedacht wird. Dies sehen auch die Herausgeber des vorliegenden Bandes und nehmen deshalb neben Beiträgen zur Diskussion um die Rolle der Bibliotheken im Zeitalter von Google auch solche auf, die Tipps zur Verwendung unterschiedlicher Google-Dienste geben. Die allgemeine Diskussion um Google und die Bibliotheken dreht sich vor allem um die Rolle, die Bibliotheken (mit ihren Informationsportalen) noch spielen können, wenn ihre Nutzer sowieso bei Google suchen, auch wenn die Bibliotheksangebote (zumindest von den Bibliothekaren) als überlegen empfunden werden. Auch wenn die Nutzer geschult werden, greifen sie doch meist lieber zur einfachen Recherchemöglichkeit bei Google oder anderen Suchmaschinen - vielleicht lässt sich die Situation am besten mit dem Satz eines im Buch zitierten Bibliothekars ausdrücken: »Everyone starts with Google except librarians.« (5.95) Sollen die Bibliotheken nun Google die einfache Recherche ganz überlassen und sich auf die komplexeren Suchfragen konzentrieren? Oder verlieren sie dadurch eine Nutzerschaft, die sich mittlerweile gar nicht mehr vorstellen kann, dass man mit anderen Werkzeugen als Suchmaschinen bessere Ergebnisse erzielen kann? Diese sicherlich für die Zukunft der Bibliotheken maßgebliche Frage wird in mehreren Beiträgen diskutiert, wobei auffällt, dass die jeweiligen Autoren keine klare Antwort bieten können, wie Bibliotheken ihre Quellen so präsentieren können, dass die Nutzer mit der Recherche so zufrieden sind, dass sie freiwillig in den Bibliotheksangeboten anstatt in Google recherchieren. Den Schwerpunkt des Buchs machen aber nicht diese eher theoretischen Aufsätze aus, sondern solche, die sich mit konkreten Google-Diensten beschäftigen. Aufgrund ihrer Nähe zu den Bibliotheksangeboten bzw. den Aufgaben der Bibliotheken sind dies vor allem Google Print und Google Scholar, aber auch die Google Search Appliance. Bei letzterer handelt es sich um eine integrierte Hard- und Softwarelösung, die die Indexierung von Inhalten aus unterschiedlichen Datenquellen ermöglicht. Der Aufsatz von Mary Taylor beschreibt die Vor- und Nachteile des Systems anhand der praktischen Anwendung in der University of Nevada.
    Weitere Rez. in JASIST 59(2008) H.9, S.1531-1533 (J. Satyanesan): "Libraries and Google is an interesting and enlightening compilation of 18 articles on Google and its impact on libraries. The topic is very current, debatable, and thought provoking. Google has profoundly empowered individuals and transformed access to information and librarians are very much concerned about its popularity and visibility. In this book, the leading authorities discuss the usefulness of Google, its influence and potential menace to libraries, and its implications for libraries and the scholarly communication. They offer practical suggestions to cope with the changing situation. The articles are written from different perspective and express all shades of opinion, both hopeful and fearful. One can discern varied moods-apprehension, resignation, encouragement, and motivation-on the part of the librarians. This is an important book providing a wealth of information for the 21st century librarian. There is a section called "Indexing, Abstracting & Website/Internet Coverage," which lists major indexing and abstracting services and other tools for bibliographic access. The format of the articles is uniform with an introduction, key words, and with the exception of two articles the rest have summaries and conclusions. References and notes of varying lengths are included in each article. This book has been copublished simultaneously as Internet Reference Quarterly, 10(3/4), 2005. Although there are single articles written on Google and libraries, this is the first book-length treatment of the topic.
    ... This book is written by library professionals and aimed at the librarians in particular, but it will be useful to others who may be interested in knowing what libraries are up to in the age of Google. It is intended for library science educators and students, library administrators, publishers and university presses. It is well organized, well researched, and easily readable. Article titles are descriptive, allowing the reader to find what he needs by scanning the table of contents or by consulting the index. The only flaw in this book is the lack of summary or conclusions in a few articles. The book is in paperback and has 240 pages. This book is a significant contribution and I highly recommend it."
    LCSH
    Communication in learning and scholarship / Technological innovations
    Subject
    Communication in learning and scholarship / Technological innovations
  10. Riesthuis, G.J.A.; Zumer, M.: FRBR and FRANAR : subject access (2004) 0.03 
    0.029665705 = product of:
  0.108774245 = sum of:
    0.042106826 = weight(_text_:higher in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042106826 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23214121 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.018281942 = weight(_text_:of in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018281942 = score(doc=2646,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.048385475 = weight(_text_:great in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048385475 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.
    Content
    1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  11. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 2: forms of name (2000) 0.02 
    0.023019785 = product of:
  0.12660882 = sum of:
    0.105957165 = weight(_text_:effect in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105957165 = score(doc=5400,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5793189 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
    0.020651652 = weight(_text_:of in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020651652 = score(doc=5400,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Continues the results of the Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, this looking at forms of name and cross-references. Tests were conducted to examine results of searching for a personal name, Leonardo da Vinci, and a corporate entered subordinately, under parts of the name which were not the leading element. Many libraries provide no cross-references, and in many cases the presence absence of punctuation in the search string has a significant effect. The effect variation when combined in an Author/Title search is also considered. The also considers the special filing of names beginning Mc, which is almost confined to some British systems, and the interfiling of subject with author entries personal names. A number of recommendations conclude the article.
  12. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.02 
    0.020836756 = product of:
  0.076401435 = sum of:
    0.01865893 = weight(_text_:of in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01865893 = score(doc=2647,freq=50.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
            50.0 = termFreq=50.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.048385475 = weight(_text_:great in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048385475 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.0093570305 = product of:
      0.018714061 = sum of:
        0.018714061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018714061 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.
    Content
    1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity
    Date
    17. 6.2015 14:40:22
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  13. Martin, S.K.: ¬The union catalogue : summary and future directions (1982) 0.02 
    0.018984262 = product of:
  0.06960896 = sum of:
    0.01939093 = weight(_text_:of in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01939093 = score(doc=290,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
    0.022146935 = weight(_text_:on in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022146935 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
    0.02807109 = product of:
      0.05614218 = sum of:
        0.05614218 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05614218 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Date
    6. 1.2007 14:49:22
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as The Future of the Union Catalogue: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Future of the Union Catalogue
  14. Danowski, P.; Heller, L.: Bibliothek 2.0 : Die Zukunft der Bibliothek? (2006) 0.02 
    0.017711045 = product of:
  0.097410746 = sum of:
    0.08818286 = weight(_text_:innovations in 68) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08818286 = score(doc=68,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37559783 = fieldWeight in 68, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=68)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 68) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=68,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 68, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=68)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Der Begriff Bibliothek 2.0 (bzw. Library 2.0) lehnt sich an die Begrifflichkeit des Web 2.0 an. Beide Begriffe sind für die bibliothekarische Welt relativ neu und werden bisher hauptsächlich im angloamerikanischen Raum diskutiert. Einige Bereiche des "neuen" Webs werden auch in Deutschland von Bibliothekaren diskutiert, so beispielsweise Weblogs und die Wikipedia. Die Betrachtung sollte hier jedoch nicht enden, sondern vielmehr als Startpunkt dienen. Über den Begriff als solchen kann man sicherlich streiten, jedoch hat er sich als tauglich erwiesen, um bestimmte Veränderungen zu beschreiben. So schreibt Michael Stephens, der den Begriff entscheidend mitprägte, im ALA TechSource Weblog: "I am so pleased with the discussion - and no matter what name you use, I love that the innovations and plans just keep rolling on."
  15. Miksa, S.D.: Educators: what are the cataloging issues students get excited about? : professional and intellectual appeals of cataloging and students' misconceptions of cataloging (2008) 0.02 
    0.0167639 = product of:
  0.09220144 = sum of:
    0.07492303 = weight(_text_:effect in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07492303 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
    0.01727841 = weight(_text_:of in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01727841 = score(doc=786,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"
  16. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.02 
    0.016749106 = product of:
  0.061413385 = sum of:
    0.011195358 = weight(_text_:of in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011195358 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
    0.022146935 = weight(_text_:on in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022146935 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
    0.02807109 = product of:
      0.05614218 = sum of:
        0.05614218 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05614218 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  17. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.02 
    0.015543414 = product of:
  0.056992516 = sum of:
    0.015832627 = weight(_text_:of in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015832627 = score(doc=54,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
    0.027124345 = weight(_text_:on in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027124345 = score(doc=54,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35714048 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
    0.014035545 = product of:
      0.02807109 = sum of:
        0.02807109 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807109 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
    Source
    Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari
  18. Oberhauser, O.: Card-Image Public Access Catalogues (CIPACs) : issues concerned with their planning and implementation (2003) 0.01 
    0.014803566 = product of:
  0.08141961 = sum of:
    0.016793035 = weight(_text_:of in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016793035 = score(doc=5065,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
    0.064626575 = weight(_text_:technological in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064626575 = score(doc=5065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3522307 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This article identifies and discusses the issues and problems that need to be considered in the process of planning and implementing card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs). CIPACs are online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards with 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 alternatives to full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. Based upon a questionnaire and relevant literature, the article looks at the following aspects: cost, conversion Speed, universal access, saving of space, preservational aspects, Software selection, preparing the card catalogue for conversion, scanning and quality control, image standards, optical character recognition, manual and intellectual input, technological aspects, administrative tools, organisational aspects, peculiarities of old catalogues, presentation of CIPACs to the users, and life expectancy of card-image catalogues.
  19. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.01 
    0.014116536 = product of:
  0.05176063 = sum of:
    0.018281942 = weight(_text_:of in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018281942 = score(doc=256,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
    0.018714061 = product of:
      0.037428122 = sum of:
        0.037428122 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037428122 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  20. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.01 
    0.012656175 = product of:
  0.04640597 = sum of:
    0.012927286 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012927286 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.018714061 = product of:
      0.037428122 = sum of:
        0.037428122 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037428122 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 203
  • el 20
  • m 9
  • s 6
  • r 5
  • b 3
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications