Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Sauperl, A."
  1. Sauperl, A.: Precoordination or not? : a new view of the old question (2009) 0.03
    0.028261498 = product of:
      0.08478449 = sum of:
        0.08478449 = sum of:
          0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.05284806 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047143444 = queryNorm
              0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
          0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03193643 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047143444 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3611, 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=3611)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to discuss some long-standing issues of the development of a subject heading language as pre- or postcoordinated. Design/methodology/approach - In a review of literature on pre- and postcoordination and user behaviour, 20 criteria originally discussed by Svenonius are considered. Findings - The advantages and disadvantages of pre- and postcoordinated systems are on a very similar level. Most subject heading languages developed recently are precoordinated. They all require investments in highly skilled intellectual work, and are therefore expensive and difficult to maintain. Postcoordinated systems seem to have more advantages for information providers, but less for users. However, most of these disadvantages could be overcome by known information retrieval models and techniques. Research limitations/implications - The criteria originally discussed by Svenonius are difficult to evaluate in an exact manner. Some of them are also irrelevant because of changes in information retrieval systems. Practical implications - It was found that the decision on whether to use a pre- or postcoordinated system cannot be taken independent of consideration of the subject authority file and the functions of an information retrieval system, which should support users on one hand and information providers and indexers on the other. Originality/value - This literature review brings together some findings that have not been considered together previously.
    Date
    20. 6.2010 14:22:43
  2. Sauperl, A.: Subject determination during the cataloging process : the development of a system based on theoretical principles (2002) 0.02
    0.016956897 = product of:
      0.05087069 = sum of:
        0.05087069 = sum of:
          0.031708833 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.031708833 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047143444 = queryNorm
              0.14931127 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
          0.019161858 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.019161858 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.047143444 = queryNorm
              0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    27. 9.2005 14:22:19
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...
  3. Sauperl, A.; Rozman, D.: Subject cataloguing at the crossroads : with or without subject heading strings? (2007) 0.01
    0.010645477 = product of:
      0.03193643 = sum of:
        0.03193643 = product of:
          0.06387286 = sum of:
            0.06387286 = weight(_text_:22 in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06387286 = score(doc=245,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 245, 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=245)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Knjiznice za prihodnost : napredek in sodelovanje : zbornik referatov [ Libraries for the future : development and collaboration: proceedings / Professional conference of Union of associations of Slovene Librarians], Portoroz, October 22-23, 2007; ed. M. Ambrozic
  4. Sauperl, A.: Subject cataloging process of Slovenian and American catalogers (2005) 0.01
    0.00880801 = product of:
      0.02642403 = sum of:
        0.02642403 = product of:
          0.05284806 = sum of:
            0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05284806 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.
  5. Sauperl, A.; Saye, J.D.: Have we made any progress? : catalogues of the future revisited (2009) 0.01
    0.00880801 = product of:
      0.02642403 = sum of:
        0.02642403 = product of:
          0.05284806 = sum of:
            0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05284806 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.
  6. Sauperl, A.: Pinning down a novel : characteristics of literary works as perceived by readers (2012) 0.01
    0.00880801 = product of:
      0.02642403 = sum of:
        0.02642403 = product of:
          0.05284806 = sum of:
            0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05284806 = score(doc=4548,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The subject description of novels in library catalogues is traditionally limited to the classification number with no description of the story. On the other hand, enthusiastic readers describe novels by tags or reviews in Web services. The purpose of this paper is to analyse readers' descriptions of novels and suggest an enhancement of the catalogue record which would be useful to the readers. Design/methodology/approach - The original research involved a content analysis of tags and reviews written by users in the online bookstore Amazon.com, the online reader advisory service LibraryThing, and the reading promotion project Primorci beremo. The results were compared to previously published results. Findings - The characteristics that most frequently elicit comments by readers are: the names of the creators and literary characters, geographic names and the titles of works, the time frame in which the story takes place, and the literary genre. Their evaluation of a novel was expressed with an opinion, an analysis, or a professional review. Awards were mentioned, and readers often also expressed their personal experience with the novel. They connected the novel with a sequel or series, with otherwise related novels, movies, etc. Often, pictures of the cover and other factual data were included. Research limitations/implications - Research was limited to readers' experiences and descriptions of literary works written in prose. Practical implications - It is suggested that the time frame, genre and awards received should be included in the functional requirements models. Originality/value - Original research was conducted over a longer period of time. The results were re-evaluated and compared to previously published results from studies by different researchers.
  7. Sauperl, A.; Saye, J.D.: Pebbles for the mosais of cataloging expertise : what do problems in expert systems for cataloging reveal about cataloging expertise? (1999) 0.01
    0.006387286 = product of:
      0.019161858 = sum of:
        0.019161858 = product of:
          0.038323715 = sum of:
            0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038323715 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 103, 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=103)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22