Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004547893 = product of:
  0.036383145 = sum of:
    0.036383145 = product of:
      0.07276629 = sum of:
        0.07276629 = weight(_text_:etc in 2807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07276629 = score(doc=2807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.41891038 = fieldWeight in 2807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Digital information and the increasing amount and availability of its basis, data, is changing scholarship to a more or less dramatic extent. New areas of research and knowledge have been created by machine-produced data, calculations, and simulations in various academic disciplines. However, no adequate infrastructure for digital information has emerged yet. Whereas in the field of scientific information providers (libraries, document centers, publishers etc.) new services, arrangements and business models are being experimented, the scholarly disciplines are, by and large, lagging behind these developments, as are most scientific work practices. To sum up: An information infrastructure of scholarly information has been developed, but not one for scholarly information, yet. What this means, and some ideas of what could be done about it, shall be discussed in the talk.

0.0013578009 = product of:
  0.010862407 = sum of:
    0.010862407 = product of:
      0.021724815 = sum of:
        0.021724815 = weight(_text_:22 in 4312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021724815 = score(doc=4312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4312, 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=4312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 6.2018 13:47:33

0.0013180295 = product of:
  0.010544236 = sum of:
    0.010544236 = product of:
      0.021088472 = sum of:
        0.021088472 = weight(_text_:system in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021088472 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos

0.0010862408 = product of:
  0.008689926 = sum of:
    0.008689926 = product of:
      0.017379852 = sum of:
        0.017379852 = weight(_text_:22 in 5234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017379852 = score(doc=5234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5234, 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=5234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:33:49

7.6885056E-4 = product of:
  0.0061508045 = sum of:
    0.0061508045 = product of:
      0.012301609 = sum of:
        0.012301609 = weight(_text_:system in 512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012301609 = score(doc=512,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.1217929 = fieldWeight in 512, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The range, depths and limits of what we know depend on the media with which we attempt to record our knowledge. This essay begins with a brief review of developments in a) media: stone, manuscripts, books and digital media, to trace how collections of recorded knowledge expanded to 235,000 in 1837 and have expanded to over 100 million unique titles in a single database including over 1 billion individual listings in 2007. The advent of digital media has brought full text scanning and electronic networks, which enable us to consult digital books and images from our office, home or potentially even with our cell phones. These magnificent developments raise a number of concerns and new challenges. An historical survey of major projects that changed the world reveals that they have taken from one to eight centuries. This helps explain why commercial offerings, which offer useful, and even profitable short-term solutions often undermine a long-term vision. New technologies have the potential to transform our approach to knowledge, but require a vision of a systematic new approach to knowledge. This paper outlines four ingredients for such a vision in the European context. First, the scope of European observatories should be expanded to inform memory institutions of latest technological developments. Second, the quest for a European Digital Library should be expanded to include a distributed repository, a digital reference room and a virtual agora, whereby memory institutions will be linked with current research;. Third, there is need for an institute on Knowledge Organization that takes up anew Otlet's vision, and the pioneering efforts of the Mundaneum (Brussels) and the Bridge (Berlin). Fourth, we need to explore requirements for a Universal Digital Library, which works with countries around the world rather than simply imposing on them an external system. Here, the efforts of the proposed European University of Culture could be useful. Ultimately we need new systems, which open research into multiple ways of knowing, multiple "knowledges". In the past, we went to libraries to study the recorded world. In a world where cameras and sensors are omnipresent we have new recording worlds. In future, we may also use these recording worlds to study the riches of libraries.