Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88

0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=3841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3841, 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=3841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:38

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 6108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=6108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 6108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries have a large stake in search protocols because library systems are diverse yet library users need to access multiple sites without learning the search syntax of each site. This paper reviews and compares the relative advantages of several of the newest search protocols and query languages: Search via URL (SRU), OpenSearch, Contextual Query Language (CQL), and XQuery. The models for SRU and OpenSearch operations are described in order to explain differences in functionality - keyword search and simple data record return for OpenSearch and richer search with multiple format data return for SRU. The advantages of CQL are described along with possible complementary uses of the highly detailed and complex XQuery being developed for XML.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=1760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Library of Congress (LC) has many of the same challenges as other libraries, especially large ones. LC has many different types of resources - books, journals, maps, music, manuscripts, audio, moving image, still image, artifacts, electronic - with large collections of each. Different levels of access are needed for this material: for some, collection level bibliographic description is adequate; for many, item level access is adequate; but for others, such as sound recordings, analytic, or sub unit access is highly desirable.The sizes of the LC collections are a major challenge - over 125 million non-electronic and over 3 million electronic items (and growing rapidly). And finally, electronic resources are presenting us with new issues - from metadata to preservation to storage to linking techniques. LC has tried to approach these challenges from a service perspective. Access must be successful for the end user, which mandates as much coherence and consistency in the metadata as possible and access systems that are easy to use. This paper focuses an the Library of Congress' perspective an metadata in the following three areas: (1) descriptive metadata in our current operations, (2) pathways that are developing that will support possible evolution in the future, and (3) broader metadata needs with digital material. The discussion is from a metadata element set and format point of view, not a cataloging data and cataloging rules view. Most acronyms used in this paper are expanded in an Appendix.