Search (68 results, page 1 of 4)

0.035653427 = product of:
  0.10696028 = sum of:
    0.092769966 = weight(_text_:searching in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092769966 = score(doc=54,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.65687346 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
    0.014190319 = product of:
      0.028380638 = sum of:
        0.028380638 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028380638 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.023139333 = product of:
  0.069418 = sum of:
    0.050497573 = weight(_text_:searching in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050497573 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
    0.018920425 = product of:
      0.03784085 = sum of:
        0.03784085 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03784085 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.020246917 = product of:
  0.06074075 = sum of:
    0.044185378 = weight(_text_:searching in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044185378 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.016555373 = product of:
      0.033110745 = sum of:
        0.033110745 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033110745 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.0173545 = product of:
  0.0520635 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.014190319 = product of:
      0.028380638 = sum of:
        0.028380638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028380638 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.015960682 = product of:
  0.047882043 = sum of:
    0.025248786 = weight(_text_:searching in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025248786 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.022633255 = product of:
      0.04526651 = sum of:
        0.04526651 = weight(_text_:etc in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04526651 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18910104 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.23937736 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.014462084 = product of:
  0.04338625 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
    0.011825266 = product of:
      0.023650533 = sum of:
        0.023650533 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023650533 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.012755221 = product of:
  0.07653132 = sum of:
    0.07653132 = weight(_text_:searching in 1902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07653132 = score(doc=1902,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.541893 = fieldWeight in 1902, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1902)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study explored the functionality of the University of Chicago's faceted catalog, Lens, in respect to monographic series. A user study was designed to evaluate the efficiency of Lens in searching for monographic series and also to determine whether controlled series access in the catalog record improves the search results. The results of the study indicate that while Lens could be considered an adequate tool for searching series that are known to be published under the same title, some changes would make it a better search engine for a series that changes series statements from one volume to another.

0.011133669 = product of:
  0.06680201 = sum of:
    0.06680201 = weight(_text_:searching in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06680201 = score(doc=2646,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.47300297 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.010933045 = product of:
  0.06559827 = sum of:
    0.06559827 = weight(_text_:searching in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06559827 = score(doc=2586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.46447968 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In pt.1, argued that modern classification theory and philosophy of science can help us understand problems of searching. In pt.2, discusses the problems in a more technical sense. considers thesauri and studies of of concept formation: choice of subject headings; definitions, and associations between subject headings; and the librarian as intermediary between the users and the library's texts. Tests the hypothesis that a catalogue record can be improved by adding information which makes the record more precise. If a record clearly indicates that a book is a typical or non-typical book on a subject, no improvement is necessary. discusses how and what new information to add and psychological barriers to this

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Draft of a descriptive theory of catalogue searching / information retrieval. Pt.2: what can concretely be done to improve searching in catalogue information

0.010414593 = product of:
  0.062487558 = sum of:
    0.062487558 = weight(_text_:searching in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062487558 = score(doc=1428,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.44245374 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Library information searching lacks a descriptive theory which explains how a user decides to borrow one book and not another. Such theory should act as a reference framework against which cataloguing rules and the classification system can be measured, and should be based on 2 complementary perspectives, described in detail: modern classification theory, which explains what cataloguing and classification involve, and philosophy of science, which explains what happens when the user meets the catalogue record. Catalogue information must answer which work is described, and why this work on the subject is chosen. A descriptive theory is especially necessary for knowing what new information to add to the catalogue. Discusses this in a subsequent article

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Draft of a descriptive theory of catalogue searching / information retrieval

0.010414593 = product of:
  0.062487558 = sum of:
    0.062487558 = weight(_text_:searching in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062487558 = score(doc=5568,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.44245374 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

As of spring semester 2010, Georgia Southern University began using a VuFind implementation as the default access to the library catalogue on the library Web page while maintaining a secondary link to the traditional Voyager "classic" catalogue. VuFind is an open-source product that has been adopted and adapted by all the state universities and colleges in the state of Georgia. For approximately ten years, Georgia libraries have used Voyager as their catalogue, and it remains available to users as the "classic" search option. This report examines the local VuFind implementation compared to the more traditional Voyager implementation, emphasizing the differences in the searching capabilities of each.

0.009110872 = product of:
  0.05466523 = sum of:
    0.05466523 = weight(_text_:searching in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05466523 = score(doc=5567,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.38706642 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.008926794 = product of:
  0.053560764 = sum of:
    0.053560764 = weight(_text_:searching in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053560764 = score(doc=1788,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reports results of an analysis of 205 randomly selected records from the OCLC OLUC, to test the assumption that online catalogues have greatly improved subject searching capabilities, over card catalogues, by making other fields in the records searchable as subject access points (SAPs). Results showed considerable overlap (duplication) among the SAPs provided by the title, subject heading and classification number fields. On average, little more than 4 unique, unduplicated access points were found per record. Where title and classification number fields do add some access points not provided by subject headings, the increase is less than many librarians might be expected. Suggests that OPACs might outperform catalogues more in precision than in recall by allowing greater discrimination in searching; terms from different fields may be combined; titles offer greater specifity; searches can be limited by date, language or other criteria

0.0073642298 = product of:
  0.044185378 = sum of:
    0.044185378 = weight(_text_:searching in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044185378 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With the ever-increasing developments in information technology and networks, end users of the online environment now have integrated access to a variety of bibliographic databases, mainly library catalogues and A&I services, from a single terminal. While such a facility influences users' expectations and preferences in the searching, retrieval and presentation of bibliographic information, it raises an important question as to whether different bibliographic practices can use a similar or compatible set of principles for creating bibliographic records and files. This paper is an attempt to identify areas of possible reconciliation and also address some of the implications of such an issue.

0.0073642298 = product of:
  0.044185378 = sum of:
    0.044185378 = weight(_text_:searching in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044185378 = score(doc=4179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper surveys card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) - online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards and 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 altematives to a full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. The article presents a Web page dedicated to CIPACs, identifies and describes four main categories of interface software for such catalogues, and provides a comparative overview of 50 CIPACs in 11 countries, looking at aspects such as geographical distribution, growth and size, software, number of catalogues, processing and index creation, navigation, image formats, and other features.

0.0073642298 = product of:
  0.044185378 = sum of:
    0.044185378 = weight(_text_:searching in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044185378 = score(doc=5400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0073642298 = product of:
  0.044185378 = sum of:
    0.044185378 = weight(_text_:searching in 5573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044185378 = score(doc=5573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 5573, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5573)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although academic libraries are increasingly converting stacks into collaborative spaces and physical books and journals are being replaced by their electronic counterparts, the concept of browsing as a means of discovery is seeing a resurgence in the world of search and discovery. While many users start their online research with electronic databases and library catalogues, interviews with North Carolina State University Libraries patrons provide evidence that physically browsing the shelves to find similar materials is still common. A growing awareness of the need to preserve this type of serendipitous discovery as a complement to keyword searching is inspiring the development of online virtual browsing tools that replace and enhance physical access to library stacks.

0.0063121966 = product of:
  0.03787318 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=377,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reports on the 34th Annual Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, held 2-4 Mar 1997 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The clinic was entitled 'Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources'. Summarizes the following individual sessions: Visual browsing for information retrieval; Hypostatizing data collections, especially bibliographic; Simultaneous searching of distributed information and subject repositories on the WWW; Information filtering from multiple sources; Thesauri in the full text world; The role of controlled vocabulary in visualizing document associations; Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval; Spatial abilities and visualizations; Using IODyne as an indexing tool; Knowledge structures for information visualizing; Visualizing digital libraries; what role for the OPAC?; How will we provide subject access in the Interspace of the 21st century?; Natural language processing based information retrieval; Building and accessing vocabulary resources for networked resource discovery and navigation; Using electronic services to become an interbetworked business; and Conference Wrap up

0.0063121966 = product of:
  0.03787318 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 5347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=5347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 5347, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5347)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Three factors are likely to force dramatic changes in the libraries of the future. They are the increase in electronic publishing, the digitising of conventional library materials, and the Internet which is creating a second information revolution. New concepts are needed for cataloguing functions in the Internet environment. Cataloguing, now a pre-coordinate function should shift to a post-coordinate activity. Authority control should become an activity of the searching stage rather than the cataloguing stage. Uniform titles will be needed as one of the linking mechanisms. The value of ISBD needs to be justified. Issues connected with the Internet and search engines are explored. A scenario for the Catalogue 2000 is given that envisions the cataloguers' aims being the inclusion of library catalogue material that is relevant but not necessarily in the library.

0.0063121966 = product of:
  0.03787318 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=1230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A Virtual union catalog is a possible alternative to the centralized database of distributed resources found in many library systems. Such a catalog would not be maintained in a single location but would be created in real time by searching each local campus or affiliate library's catalog through the Z39.50 protocol. This would eliminate the redundancy of record storage as well as the expense of loading and maintaining access to the central catalog. This article describes a test implementation of a virtual union catalog for the University of California system. It describes some of the differences between the virtual catalog and the existing, centralized union catalog (MELVYL). The research described in the paper suggests enhancements that must be made if the virtual union catalog is to become a reasonable service alternative to the MELVYL® catalog.