Search (71 results, page 1 of 4)

0.01865998 = product of:
  0.06530993 = sum of:
    0.05472661 = weight(_text_:great in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05472661 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = 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)
    0.010583311 = product of:
      0.021166623 = sum of:
        0.021166623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021166623 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

0.015084905 = product of:
  0.052797165 = sum of:
    0.011752204 = weight(_text_:based in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011752204 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.09986758 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.04104496 = weight(_text_:great in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04104496 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.01403292 = product of:
  0.04911522 = sum of:
    0.03324025 = weight(_text_:based in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03324025 = score(doc=5188,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
    0.015874967 = product of:
      0.031749934 = sum of:
        0.031749934 = weight(_text_:22 in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031749934 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5188, 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=5188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article asserts that many research questions (RQs) in cataloging reflect design-based RQs, rather than traditional scientific ones. To support this idea, a review of existing discussions of RQs is presented to identify prominent types of RQs, including design-based RQs. RQ types are then classified into a taxonomic framework and compared with RQs from the Everyday Cataloger Concerns project, which aimed to identify important areas of research from the perspective of practicing catalogers. This comparative method demonstrates the ways in which the research areas identified by cataloging practitioners reflect design RQs-and therefore require design approaches and methods to answer them.

Date

30. 5.2019 19:14:22

0.013130001 = product of:
  0.045955002 = sum of:
    0.023504408 = weight(_text_:based in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023504408 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.022450594 = product of:
      0.04490119 = sum of:
        0.04490119 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04490119 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

0.009595635 = product of:
  0.06716944 = sum of:
    0.06716944 = weight(_text_:based in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06716944 = score(doc=1924,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.57079077 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

FRBR user research has been the least addressed area in FRBR research and development. This article addresses the research gap in evaluating and designing catalogs based on FRBR user research. It draws from three user studies concerning FRBR-based catalogs: (1) user evaluation of three FRBR-based catalogs, (2) user participatory design of a prototype catalog based on the FRBR model, and (3) user evaluation of the resulting FRBR prototype catalog. The major findings from the user studies are highlighted and discussed for future development of FRBR-based catalogs that support various user tasks.

0.009376042 = product of:
  0.032816146 = sum of:
    0.019587006 = weight(_text_:based in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019587006 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
    0.013229139 = product of:
      0.026458278 = sum of:
        0.026458278 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026458278 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.007818088 = product of:
  0.05472661 = sum of:
    0.05472661 = weight(_text_:great in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05472661 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.006047607 = product of:
  0.042333245 = sum of:
    0.042333245 = product of:
      0.08466649 = sum of:
        0.08466649 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08466649 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.006047607 = product of:
  0.042333245 = sum of:
    0.042333245 = product of:
      0.08466649 = sum of:
        0.08466649 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08466649 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

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

0.005815833 = product of:
  0.04071083 = sum of:
    0.04071083 = weight(_text_:based in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04071083 = score(doc=2724,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.34595144 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Approaches to the measurement of catalog record quality are discussed. The systematic application of specific evaluation criteria may be more reliable than expert opinion, if not necessarily more accurate, and the construction of an error weightings table based on empirical investigation into catalog use is described. Although this process proved to be complex, and involved significant methodological problems, it was shown to be readily achievable. As catalog use may in many cases be insufficiently uniform across libraries to allow for generic evaluation criteria, it is proposed that cataloging managers construct their own set by studying the impact that record quality has on the particular use of their own catalogs. Thus more empirical research into catalog use is advocated, in order to supplement expert opinion and to build toward a practice of evidence-based cataloging.

0.005540042 = product of:
  0.038780294 = sum of:
    0.038780294 = weight(_text_:based in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038780294 = score(doc=3549,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The starting-point of the paper is the debate recently developed in LIS literature about OPAC enhancement and the necessity to design OPACs based on search engines features. Supposed improving tools as relevance ranking and relevance feedback devices are examinated. Possible OPAC development lines, based on theoretical examination of relevance and pertinence concepts, according to Sarácevic view, and following semantics perspectives, are presented. Finally, enhancement of OPACs starting from their inner characteristics is proposed, and a plan to improve semantic search functions while maintaining existing indexing methodologies, that is document conceptual analysis, is outlined.

0.005540042 = product of:
  0.038780294 = sum of:
    0.038780294 = weight(_text_:based in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038780294 = score(doc=2945,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

RDA was created in response to complaints about the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, especially the call for a more international, principle-based content standard that takes the perspective of the conceptual models of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data). The past and ongoing process for continuous improvement to RDA is through the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (known as the JSC, but recently renamed the RDA Steering Committee - RSC) to make RDA even more international and principle-based.

0.0048465277 = product of:
  0.033925693 = sum of:
    0.033925693 = weight(_text_:based in 5571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033925693 = score(doc=5571,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 5571, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5571)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

One of the presumed advantages of next-generation library catalogue interfaces is that the user experience is improved-that it is both richer and more intuitive. Often the interfaces come with little or no user-facing documentation or imbedded "help" for patrons based on an assumption of ease of use and familiarity of the experience, having followed best practices in use on the Web. While there has been much gray literature (published on library Web sites, etc.) interrogating these implicit claims and contrasting the new interfaces to traditional Web-based catalogues, this article details a consistent and formal comparison of whether users can actually accomplish common library tasks, unassisted, using these interfaces. The author has undertaken a task-based usability test of vendor-provided next-generation catalogue interfaces and Web-scale discovery tools (Encore Synergy, Summon, WorldCat Local, Primo Central, EBSCO Discovery Service). Testing was done with undergraduates across all academic disciplines. The resulting qualitative data, noting any demonstrated trouble using the software as well as feedback or suggested improvements that the users may have about the software, will assist academic libraries in making or validating purchase and subscription decisions for these interfaces as well as help vendors make data-driven decisions about interface and experience enhancements.

0.0047486075 = product of:
  0.03324025 = sum of:
    0.03324025 = weight(_text_:based in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03324025 = score(doc=5065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.004535705 = product of:
  0.031749934 = sum of:
    0.031749934 = product of:
      0.06349987 = sum of:
        0.06349987 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06349987 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.004535705 = product of:
  0.031749934 = sum of:
    0.031749934 = product of:
      0.06349987 = sum of:
        0.06349987 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06349987 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.004535705 = product of:
  0.031749934 = sum of:
    0.031749934 = product of:
      0.06349987 = sum of:
        0.06349987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06349987 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

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

0.00447703 = product of:
  0.03133921 = sum of:
    0.03133921 = weight(_text_:based in 5527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03133921 = score(doc=5527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 5527, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5527)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

State of the art review of OPACs which suggests a model for their future development based on a redefinition of the roles previously served by the traditional catalogue. Notes the traditional role of library catalogues and considers the ways in which the catalogue's functions can be extended to provide access to the whole of the library 's resources including access to other libraries' collections

0.00447703 = product of:
  0.03133921 = sum of:
    0.03133921 = weight(_text_:based in 5748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03133921 = score(doc=5748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 5748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5748)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Examines the future of the cataloguer in an increasingly electronic environment arguing that this future will depend on adopting a more holistic approach that broadens the concept from cataloguing to the organization of information. If the goal of libraries is to provide access to information it is the organizational tools created by cataloguers that help meet this goal. Cataloguers must be aware of the potential uses of information and how it may be exploited and administrators must capitalize on cataloguers' expertise when information systems based on their work are developed

0.003957173 = product of:
  0.02770021 = sum of:
    0.02770021 = weight(_text_:based in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02770021 = score(doc=5567,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.