Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.06 
    0.057755806 = product of:
  0.11551161 = sum of:
    0.11551161 = sum of:
      0.06602007 = weight(_text_:systems in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06602007 = score(doc=5365,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049491543 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)
    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.
  2. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.05 
    0.05309862 = product of:
  0.10619724 = sum of:
    0.10619724 = sum of:
      0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04620442 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.059992813 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059992813 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)
    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
  3. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.05 
    0.050061855 = product of:
  0.10012371 = sum of:
    0.10012371 = sum of:
      0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043561947 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
      0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056561764 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)
    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
  4. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.05 
    0.050061855 = product of:
  0.10012371 = sum of:
    0.10012371 = sum of:
      0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043561947 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056561764 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  5. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.02 
    0.021210661 = product of:
  0.042421322 = sum of:
    0.042421322 = product of:
      0.084842645 = sum of:
        0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084842645 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  6. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.02 
    0.01767555 = product of:
  0.0353511 = sum of:
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707022 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Umstätter, W.; Wagner-Döbler, R.; Löffler, K.: Einführung in die Katalogkunde : Vom Zettelkatalog zur Suchmaschine (2005) 0.02 
    0.01564433 = product of:
  0.03128866 = sum of:
    0.03128866 = sum of:
      0.013613109 = weight(_text_:systems in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013613109 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.08488525 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
      0.01767555 = weight(_text_:22 in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01767555 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die Katalogkunde von KARL LÖFFLER aus dem Jahre 1956 als Grundlage unserer Einführung kann einerseits als völlig veraltet angesehen werden, weil sie sich ausschließlich auf Kataloge bezieht, die auf Papier bzw. Karteikarten geschrieben waren. Die Fotographie und die Verwendung des Mikrofilms wurde damals als das Medium der Zukunft angesehen. Andererseits sind die Ausführungen der ersten und zweiten Auflage dieses Lehrbuchs von 1936 und 1956 insofern noch immer aktuell, als die Kataloge der damaligen Zeit inzwischen vielfach digitalisiert wurden und nun online verfügbar sind. Unter dem Stichwort Retrokonvertierung gewinnen die Katalogisierungsregeln der damaligen Zeit wieder Bedeutung oder bleiben sie wirksam. Und der Blick auf den geschichtlichen Kontext, den Löffler immer wieder hervorhebt, vermittelt unserer Meinung nach auch heute noch ein Gefühl für die historische Kontinuität der Probleme, die wir heute unter die Begriffe Wissensorganisation und Wissensmanagement subsumieren. «Die Unkenntnis der Lehre vom Katalog rächt sich am Bibliotheksbesucher selbst», schreibt LÖFFLER in seinem Vorwort von 1935, und wir können heute ergänzen, dass diese Besucher weitaus häufiger Nutzer von Bibliotheken sind, als sie es selbst oft wissen. Sie sitzen zu Hause, im Büro oder im Internetcafe an einem Computer und recherchieren in Online-Katalogen bzw. Datenbanken nach Publikationen, oft ohne jede Kenntnis davon, wie die Erschließung der Bestände organisiert ist, und nicht selten auch ohne den gewünschten Erfolg - und nicht immer im Bewusstsein, dass ein Misserfolg vorliegt, der sich bei besserer Katalog- und Datenbankkenntnis hätte vermeiden lassen. Katalogkunde offenbart damit das Spiel zwischen gezielter Suche, über das «Stöbern» (Browsing) hin bis zur Serendipity, in der wir, wie einst die jungen Prinzen auf Ceylon (Serendip) hinaus in die Fremde ziehen, um uns von der Großartigkeit der Welt überraschen zu lassen - und Bibliotheken haben im Sinne der Welt 3 von KARL POPPER eine überwältigende Größe und Vielfalt. Bei dem Spiel, der ein Wettkampf um die besten Informationen ist, kann es nicht darum gehen, die Regeln der Preußischen Instruktionen(PI), der Alphabetischen Katalogisierung (RAK), die Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), die Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog (RSWK), die Prinzipien des Unified Medical Language Systems (UMLS) usw. im einzelnen zu behandeln, sondern vielmehr nur darum, die Grundprinzipien des modernen Kataloges aus ihrer Evolution heraus zu verstehen, um mit ihnen möglichst virtuos umzugehen. Wir hoffen, dass die Katalogkunde dadurch jene Fassung erhalten hat, die den heutigen Bedürfnissen entspricht, und dass sie damit einerseits Inhalte aus dem «Lehrbuch der Bibliotheksverwaltung», und andererseits aus der «Katalogkunde» von KLAUs HALLER (1998) in wichtigen Punkten ergänzt und erweitert.
    Date
    22. 1.2006 19:45:49
  8. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.01 
    0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.01 
    0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
  10. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 2: forms of name (2000) 0.01 
    0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=5400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  11. Peterson, E.: Parallel systems : the coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy (2008) 0.01 
    0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=251,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.
  12. Erdei, K.: Kein Umzug für Zettel : Die digitalisierten Kataloge im Neubau der UB Kiel (2001) 0.01 
    0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5777, 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=5777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28. 4.2001 16:49:22
  13. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01 
    0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  14. Whitney , C.; Schiff, L.: ¬The Melvyl Recommender Project : developing library recommendation services (2006) 0.01 
    0.011551105 = product of:
  0.02310221 = sum of:
    0.02310221 = product of:
      0.04620442 = sum of:
        0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04620442 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.
  15. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.01 
    0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
  16. Neubauer, W.: Von Bibliothekskatalogen zu Wissensportalen (2006) 0.01 
    0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2008 12:40:17
  17. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009) 0.01 
    0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=2939,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.
  19. Gardner, S.A.: ¬The changing landscape of contemporary cataloging (2008) 0.01 
    0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Intended to contribute to the current dialogue about how the emerging information environment is impacting cataloging issues, this survey paper covers a broad range of topics, such as how search engines compare with integrated library systems, and includes some thoughts on how cataloging processes may evolve to continue to remain relevant. The author suggests that there is a need for significant changes in integrated library system interfaces and infrastructures as well as some changes in cataloging practice. The value of descriptive vs. non-descriptive elements in the catalog record and some pros and cons of the MARC format are covered.
  20. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.01 
    0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 22
  • d 8

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications