Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08140927 = product of:
  0.1221139 = sum of:
    0.101712465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101712465 = score(doc=164,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.518332 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, 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=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The growth and use of aggregator databases have presented libraries with both new opportunities for collection enhancement and new challenges of bibliographic control. How to integrate full-text electronic journal titles in unstable aggregator databases into a library's OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) has been an especially taxing matter for libraries. This article describes the Hong Kong Baptist University Library's effort to integrate full-text electronic journal titles from three large, unstable aggregator databases into its INNOPAC-based OPAC. The library's electronic journal computer program (EJCOP) does this in a simple, direct, consistent, and accurate manner and addresses some of the issues elaborated in the January 2000 Final Report of the Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases of the Standing Committee on Automation of the Library of Congress Program for Cooperative Cataloging.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07180679 = product of:
  0.107710175 = sum of:
    0.083908506 = weight(_text_:electronic in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083908506 = score(doc=602,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.4276021 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
    0.023801671 = product of:
      0.047603343 = sum of:
        0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047603343 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper reviews issues related to the cataloging of Internet resources and considers shortand long-term directions for cataloging and the general provision of library services for remotely accessible, electronic information resources. The strengths and weakness of using a library catalog model to improve access to Internet resources are discussed and compared with a review of related efforts. Based on experience gained through two OCLC Internet cataloging projects, the authors recommend continued and vigorous appplication of library cataloging standards and methods for Internet resources with the expectation that catalogs, cataloging, and libraries in general will continue to evolve.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Electronic Resources: Selection and Bibliographic Control

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.197-238

0.02397386 = product of:
  0.07192158 = sum of:
    0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07192158 = score(doc=4343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 4343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4343)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Viele auch kleinere Unternehmen, Verwaltungen und Organisationen sind angesichts eines wachsenden Berges von digitalen Informationen mit dem Ordnen und Strukturieren ihrer Ablagen beschäftigt. In den meisten Organisationen besteht ein Konzept der Dokumentenlenkung. Records Management verfolgt vor allem in zwei Punkten einen weiterführenden Ansatz. Zum einen stellt es über den Geschäftsalltag hinaus den Kontext und den Entstehungszusammenhang ins Zentrum und zum anderen gibt es Regeln vor, wie mit ungenutzten oder inaktiven Dokumenten zu verfahren ist. Mit den «Model Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records» - MoReq - wurde von der europäischen Kommission ein Standard geschaffen, der alle Kernbereiche des Records Managements und damit den gesamten Entstehungs-, Nutzungs-, Archivierungsund Aussonderungsbereich von Dokumenten abdeckt. In der «Anleitung zur Umsetzung» wird die umfangreiche Anforderungsliste von MoReq2 (August 2008) zusammengefasst und durch erklärende Abschnitte ergänzt, mit dem Ziel, als griffiges Instrument bei der Einführung eines Record Management Systems zu dienen.

0.009888712 = product of:
  0.029666137 = sum of:
    0.029666137 = weight(_text_:electronic in 512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029666137 = score(doc=512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.15118018 = fieldWeight in 512, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=512)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The range, depths and limits of what we know depend on the media with which we attempt to record our knowledge. This essay begins with a brief review of developments in a) media: stone, manuscripts, books and digital media, to trace how collections of recorded knowledge expanded to 235,000 in 1837 and have expanded to over 100 million unique titles in a single database including over 1 billion individual listings in 2007. The advent of digital media has brought full text scanning and electronic networks, which enable us to consult digital books and images from our office, home or potentially even with our cell phones. These magnificent developments raise a number of concerns and new challenges. An historical survey of major projects that changed the world reveals that they have taken from one to eight centuries. This helps explain why commercial offerings, which offer useful, and even profitable short-term solutions often undermine a long-term vision. New technologies have the potential to transform our approach to knowledge, but require a vision of a systematic new approach to knowledge. This paper outlines four ingredients for such a vision in the European context. First, the scope of European observatories should be expanded to inform memory institutions of latest technological developments. Second, the quest for a European Digital Library should be expanded to include a distributed repository, a digital reference room and a virtual agora, whereby memory institutions will be linked with current research;. Third, there is need for an institute on Knowledge Organization that takes up anew Otlet's vision, and the pioneering efforts of the Mundaneum (Brussels) and the Bridge (Berlin). Fourth, we need to explore requirements for a Universal Digital Library, which works with countries around the world rather than simply imposing on them an external system. Here, the efforts of the proposed European University of Culture could be useful. Ultimately we need new systems, which open research into multiple ways of knowing, multiple "knowledges". In the past, we went to libraries to study the recorded world. In a world where cameras and sensors are omnipresent we have new recording worlds. In future, we may also use these recording worlds to study the riches of libraries.