Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.100592 = product of:
  0.150888 = sum of:
    0.11881542 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11881542 = score(doc=2587,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
    0.032072574 = product of:
      0.06414515 = sum of:
        0.06414515 = weight(_text_:searching in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06414515 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.07712558 = product of:
  0.11568836 = sum of:
    0.08819758 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08819758 = score(doc=131,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
    0.027490778 = product of:
      0.054981556 = sum of:
        0.054981556 = weight(_text_:searching in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054981556 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.037423342 = product of:
  0.11227002 = sum of:
    0.11227002 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11227002 = score(doc=2693,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.56900144 = fieldWeight in 2693, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2693)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The computer technology has considerable potential for better and more efficient management of knowledge and information sources. It is possible to provide easy, integrated and straightforward access to works of knowledge appearing in different expressions, editions, and manifestations (i.e., to bibliographic families). The online environment requires that the bibliographic record, as the surrogate for works of knowledge, should be restructured to provide users with a high-quality finding, identifying and collocating bibliographic tool. Unlike the existing flat structure, the multi-level structure of the Work Record would provide catalog users with the ability to discover if a work has been published/represented in different editions and manifestations and if there is any relationship among different works in a catalog or an the Internet. A similar structure for the Author Record would provide better access to different works by an author or about an author. A new structure for the bibliographic record is suggested through an analysis and categorization of the different relationships that exist in the bibliographic universe. A prototype catalogue developed based an the new structure (available an the Internet at: http://wilma.silas.unsw.edu.au/ students/rfattahi/super.html) illustrates the ability of providing multi-level, yet easy access to voluminous works and voluminous authors. Furthermore, the prototype catalog provides a clearer picture of bibliographic families and helps OPAC users decide an specific editions, manifestations, or items related to a specific work.

0.030318182 = product of:
  0.09095454 = sum of:
    0.09095454 = sum of:
      0.06348723 = weight(_text_:searching in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06348723 = score(doc=1422,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05068286 = queryNorm
          0.30965313 = fieldWeight in 1422, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1422)
      0.02746731 = weight(_text_:22 in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02746731 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05068286 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1422, 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=1422)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose A higher level of retrieval relevance along with pertinence is what information systems are required to provide if they are to gain more user satisfaction. Although in almost every IR system, general and non-topical terms are not considered to play a major role in indexing, the underlying assumption of current study stems from the fact that these terms could be effective in better searching by end-users. Thus this paper aims at proposing a new approach in this regard using a small thesaurus of general and non-topical terms which can be used along with queries (i.e., topical keywords). This would help making users' queries closer to natural language. Method In the first phase of this study, a set of 669 non-topical terms, which were identified through a previous study, was assumed as the test bed. Based on the main goal of the present paper, the list was analyzed and divided into major categories. As for the second phase, a preferred label representing each category was selected and assigned based on its "use warrant"; and to this end Google Trends was applied for determining the most-frequent general and non-topical terms among users' web searches. At last the developed thesaurus was tested in searching and the retrieved results were evaluated in terms of relevance and pertinence. Results The findings of this study show that, although there is rather a diverse range of general and non-topical terms appearing before or after topical keywords in Web documents, users are still using no or only a small fracture of them in their search queries. The findings also show that these terms would be of great assistance in providing more relevant results and a meaningful display of the results. This paper then proposes a conceptual model for applying such a thesaurus in searching the Web.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.029399194 = product of:
  0.08819758 = sum of:
    0.08819758 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08819758 = score(doc=6431,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 6431, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6431)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Online catalogues and card catalogues can be compared from different perspectives and according to different criteria. Compares the 2 types of catalogue according to the processes in which bibliographic records are created (input stage), manipulated (storage stage) and retrieval (output stage). The concepts underlying these stages are studied, revealing major differences between online and card catalogues, which are multiplied and widened when moving from input and output stage to such an extent that online catalogues can be considered as a significant departure from manual catalogues. The redesign for use in the online environment of bibliographic standards (cataloguing codes, MARC formats and ISBDs) which have been based on the concept of the card catalogue should instead be based on the conceptual as well as the practical differences between the online and the card catalogue

0.028005064 = product of:
  0.08401519 = sum of:
    0.08401519 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08401519 = score(doc=3828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Suggests that an appropriate approach in comparing online and card catalogues is to compare the 2 in relation to the processes in which bibliographic records are created (the input stage), manipulated (the storage stage) and retrieved (the output stage). Studies the concepts underlying these processes and reveals major differences between online and card catalogues. These differences are multiplied and widened when moving from input to output to such an extent that online catalogues can be considered as a significant departure from manual catalogues. The redesign for use in an online environment of bibliographical standards which are based on the card catalogue should be based on conceptual as well as practical differences between the online and card catalogues

0.02400434 = product of:
  0.07201302 = sum of:
    0.07201302 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07201302 = score(doc=5101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 5101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5101)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes a new approach to describing bibliographic entities aimed at fulfilling all the functions of the catalogue in the online environment. While it is assumed that the basic unit of description is the item in hand and records describing items would fulfil the finding, identifying, choosing and locating functions; super records, which are based on the concept of 'super works', would fulfil the collocating function in a more meaningful way. This approach is a solution to the problem of the same work appearing in various manifestations and formats. Super records for voluminous works include attributes that are common to different versions of a work and are linked to bibliographic records for items. Describes a prototype catalogue of super records that has been developed and made available on the Web to introduce the advantages, limitations and possible consequences of the concept on cataloguing principles, MARC and Z39.50

0.007636327 = product of:
  0.02290898 = sum of:
    0.02290898 = product of:
      0.04581796 = sum of:
        0.04581796 = weight(_text_:searching in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04581796 = score(doc=2106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 2106, 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=2106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach to query expansion in search engines through the use of general non-topical terms (NTTs) and domain-specific semi-topical terms (STTs). NTTs and STTs can be used in conjunction with topical terms (TTs) to improve precision in retrieval results. In Phase I, 20 topical queries in two domains (Health and the Social Sciences) were carried out in Google and from the results of the queries, 800 pages were textually analysed. Of 1442 NTTs and STTs identified, 15% were shared between the two domains; 62% were NTTs and 38% were STTs; and approximately 64% occurred before while 36% occurred after their respective topical terms (TTs). Findings of Phase II showed that query expansion through NTTs (or STTs) particularly in the 'exact title' and URL search options resulted in more precise and manageable results. Statistically significant differences were found between Health and the Social Sciences vis-à-vis keyword and 'exact phrase' search results; however there were no significant differences in exact title and URL search results. The ratio of exact phrase, exact title, and URL search result frequencies to keyword search result frequencies also showed statistically significant differences between the two domains. Our findings suggest that web searching could be greatly enhanced combining NTTs (and STTs) with TTs in an initial query. Additionally, search results would improve if queries are restricted to the exact title or URL search options. Finally, we suggest the development and implementation of knowledge-based lists of NTTs (and STTs) by both general and specialized search engines to aid query expansion.

0.007636327 = product of:
  0.02290898 = sum of:
    0.02290898 = product of:
      0.04581796 = sum of:
        0.04581796 = weight(_text_:searching in 4673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04581796 = score(doc=4673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 4673, 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=4673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)