Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04579494 = product of:
  0.09158988 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
    0.020238347 = product of:
      0.040476695 = sum of:
        0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040476695 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Twenty-five years of research in expert systems for descriptive cataloging and related areas are reviewed. Researchers who developed prototype expert cataloging systems in the 1980s found that cataloging rules are extremely comprehensive and complicated, but still insufficient to permit these systems accurate cataloging results. Those researchers also identified smaller areas that need to be pursued for successful implementation of expert cataloging systems. Subsequent research has focused on narrower areas. Cataloging rules were studied and more was learned about problems with their logic structure and organization. Another focus was optical reading of bibliographic elements in documents. Categories of responsibility and graphic design continue to pose problems. The visual characteristics of documents were studied to understand more about the automatic recognition of bibliographic elements necessary for the bibliographic description of documents. The systematic study of the cataloging process, necessary for development of expert systems, may result in improvement of manual working procedures and enrich the education of new catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02289747 = product of:
  0.04579494 = sum of:
    0.035675768 = weight(_text_:description in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035675768 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.1541063 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.010119174 = product of:
      0.020238347 = sum of:
        0.020238347 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020238347 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

0.021022148 = product of:
  0.08408859 = sum of:
    0.08408859 = weight(_text_:description in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08408859 = score(doc=4548,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.36323205 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.020810865 = product of:
  0.08324346 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Publishers present novels with summaries, librarians provide subject headings, classification numbers and annotations, literary theorists write reviews. Readers share opinions and tags in social networks. These groups share interest in the same novel and possibly in the same library catalogs. I analyze the descriptions of novels written by these four groups to propose the enhancement of library catalogs. Results show that the story, information about the author, genre, personal experience with reading the novel, and an evaluation (awards, personal evaluation) are consistently presented by all four groups and should become standard elements for the subject description of fiction.

0.02058303 = product of:
  0.08233212 = sum of:
    0.08233212 = weight(_text_:26 in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08233212 = score(doc=674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.4682183 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 5.1997 20:18:11

0.014864903 = product of:
  0.05945961 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.011059988 = product of:
  0.044239953 = sum of:
    0.044239953 = product of:
      0.08847991 = sum of:
        0.08847991 = weight(_text_:access in 6951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08847991 = score(doc=6951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.5242754 = fieldWeight in 6951, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.008432645 = product of:
  0.03373058 = sum of:
    0.03373058 = product of:
      0.06746116 = sum of:
        0.06746116 = weight(_text_:22 in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06746116 = score(doc=245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0042163227 = product of:
  0.01686529 = sum of:
    0.01686529 = product of:
      0.03373058 = sum of:
        0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373058 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 6.2010 14:22:43

0.0039499956 = product of:
  0.015799982 = sum of:
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.