Search (83 results, page 1 of 5)

0.05370087 = product of:
  0.10740174 = sum of:
    0.10740174 = sum of:
      0.072813205 = weight(_text_:engines in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.072813205 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.03458854 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03458854 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

0.044140667 = product of:
  0.08828133 = sum of:
    0.08828133 = product of:
      0.17656267 = sum of:
        0.17656267 = weight(_text_:engines in 2255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17656267 = score(doc=2255,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.68060905 = fieldWeight in 2255, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The behavior of academic library users has drastically changed in recent years. Internet search engines have become the preferred tool over the library online public access catalog (OPAC) for finding information. Libraries are losing ground to online search engines. In this paper, two aspects of OPAC use are studied: (1) the current OPAC interface and searching capabilities, and (2) the OPAC bibliographic display. The purpose of the study is to find answers to the following questions: Why is the current OPAC ineffective? What can libraries and librarians do to deliver an OPAC that is as good as search engines to better serve our users? Revitalizing the library OPAC is one of the pressing issues that has to be accomplished.

0.03759061 = product of:
  0.07518122 = sum of:
    0.07518122 = sum of:
      0.050969247 = weight(_text_:engines in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050969247 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.19647488 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.024211979 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024211979 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.031529047 = product of:
  0.06305809 = sum of:
    0.06305809 = product of:
      0.12611619 = sum of:
        0.12611619 = weight(_text_:engines in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12611619 = score(doc=2810,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Some Online Public Access Catalogues offer a ranking component. However, ranking there is merely text-based and is doomed to fail due to limited text in bibliographic data. The main assumption for the talk is that we are in a situation where the appropriate ranking factors for OPACs should be defined, while the implementation is no major problem. We must define what we want, and not so much focus on the technical work. Some deep thinking is necessary on the "perfect results set" and how we can achieve it through ranking. The talk presents a set of potential ranking factors and clustering possibilities for further discussion. A look at commercial Web search engines could provide us with ideas how ranking can be improved with additional factors. Search engines are way beyond pure text-based ranking and apply ranking factors in the groups like popularity, freshness, personalisation, etc. The talk describes the main factors used in search engines and how derivatives of these could be used for libraries' purposes. The goal of ranking is to provide the user with the best-suitable results on top of the results list. How can this goal be achieved with the library catalogue and also concerning the library's different collections and databases? The assumption is that ranking of such materials is a complex problem and is yet nowhere near solved. Libraries should focus on ranking to improve user experience.

0.027670832 = product of:
  0.055341665 = sum of:
    0.055341665 = product of:
      0.11068333 = sum of:
        0.11068333 = weight(_text_:22 in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11068333 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.21-31

0.027670832 = product of:
  0.055341665 = sum of:
    0.055341665 = product of:
      0.11068333 = sum of:
        0.11068333 = weight(_text_:22 in 7483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11068333 = score(doc=7483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.133-142

0.025743358 = product of:
  0.051486716 = sum of:
    0.051486716 = product of:
      0.10297343 = sum of:
        0.10297343 = weight(_text_:engines in 4358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10297343 = score(doc=4358,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 4358, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today's information seekers have been conditioned by Web search engines to expect immediate gratification as the result of user-friendly Web experiences. In contrast, it is increasingly apparent that traditional library OPACs do not provide the same ease of use or access to information. National Bibliographic Agencies (NBAs) and libraries everywhere need to respond to this discrepancy by initiating measures to enrich their databases and bibliographic products with much more information than is currently captured in records for resources. At the same time, NBAs must address the need for a new generation of OPACs that offers significantly enhanced functionality, much of which can be based on standard features of Web search engines and online bookstores. In view of alternatives available to information seekers, these needs require immediate attention if NBAs and libraries are to retain the support of satisfied users into the 21 st century. This paper offers specific recommendations to assist them in identifying and implementing appropriate responses.

0.025743358 = product of:
  0.051486716 = sum of:
    0.051486716 = product of:
      0.10297343 = sum of:
        0.10297343 = weight(_text_:engines in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10297343 = score(doc=5229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thirty-one patrons, who were selected by Slone to provide a range of age and experience, agreed when approached while using the catalog of the Wake County library system to try searching via the Internet. Fifteen searched the Wake County online catalog in this manner and 16 searched the World Wide Web, including that catalog. They were subjected to brief pre-structured taped interviews before and after their searches and observed during the searching process resulting in a log of behaviors, comments, pages accessed, and time spent. Data were analyzed across participants and categories. Web searches were characterized as linking, URL, search engine, within a site domain, and searching a web catalog; and participants by the number of these techniques used. Four used only one, 13 used two, 11 used three, two used four, and one all five. Participant experience was characterized as never used, used search engines, browsing experience, email experience, URL experience, catalog experience, and finally chat room/newsgroup experience. Sixteen percent of the participants had never used the Internet, 71% had used search engines, 65% had browsed, 58% had used email, 39% had used URLs, 39% had used online catalogs, and 32% had used chat rooms. The catalog was normally consulted before the web, where both were used, and experience with an online catalog assists in web use. Scrolling was found to be unpopular and practiced halfheartedly.

0.025743358 = product of:
  0.051486716 = sum of:
    0.051486716 = product of:
      0.10297343 = sum of:
        0.10297343 = weight(_text_:engines in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10297343 = score(doc=5882,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Due to the advances in information retrieval in the past decades, search engines have become extremely efficient at acquiring useful sources in response to a user's query. However, for more prolonged and complex information seeking tasks, these search engines are not as well suited. During complex information seeking tasks, various stages may occur, which imply varying support needs for users. However, the implications of theoretical information seeking models for concrete search user interfaces (SUI) design are unclear, both at the level of the individual features and of the whole interface. Guidelines and design patterns for concrete SUIs, on the other hand, provide recommendations for feature design, but these are separated from their role in the information seeking process. This chapter addresses the question of how to design SUIs with enhanced support for the macro-level process, first by reviewing previous research. Subsequently, we outline a framework for complex task support, which explicitly connects the temporal development of complex tasks with different levels of support by SUI features. This is followed by a discussion of concrete system examples which include elements of the three dimensions of our framework in an exploratory search and sensemaking context. Moreover, we discuss the connection of navigation with the search-oriented framework. In our final discussion and conclusion, we provide recommendations for designing more holistic SUIs which potentially evolve along with a user's information seeking process.

0.025484623 = product of:
  0.050969247 = sum of:
    0.050969247 = product of:
      0.10193849 = sum of:
        0.10193849 = weight(_text_:engines in 3195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10193849 = score(doc=3195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 3195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines the use of the Z39.50 Information Retrieval protocol for provision of access to its collections. Z39.50 offers a translation of different search engines developed by library systems suppliers and online database hosts. Traces its development and describes its abstraction and metalanguage, and the TCP/IP and OSI layer. It is being further developed in project ONE - OPAC Network in Europe, and European Union Library Plan project which began in Jan 95, of which the British Library is a partner. It aims to link national library catalogues in an open standards and telecommunications network, and to achieve interoperability by use of Z39.50. Describes the project so far, agreements made, and future developments

0.025484623 = product of:
  0.050969247 = sum of:
    0.050969247 = product of:
      0.10193849 = sum of:
        0.10193849 = weight(_text_:engines in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10193849 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The starting-point of the paper is the debate recently developed in LIS literature about OPAC enhancement and the necessity to design OPACs based on search engines features. Supposed improving tools as relevance ranking and relevance feedback devices are examinated. Possible OPAC development lines, based on theoretical examination of relevance and pertinence concepts, according to Sarácevic view, and following semantics perspectives, are presented. Finally, enhancement of OPACs starting from their inner characteristics is proposed, and a plan to improve semantic search functions while maintaining existing indexing methodologies, that is document conceptual analysis, is outlined.

0.024457792 = product of:
  0.048915584 = sum of:
    0.048915584 = product of:
      0.09783117 = sum of:
        0.09783117 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09783117 = score(doc=4368,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:36:10
22. 1.2000 19:41:58

0.024211979 = product of:
  0.048423957 = sum of:
    0.048423957 = product of:
      0.096847914 = sum of:
        0.096847914 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096847914 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bulletin des bibliothèques de France. 34(1989) no.1, S.22-47

0.024211979 = product of:
  0.048423957 = sum of:
    0.048423957 = product of:
      0.096847914 = sum of:
        0.096847914 = weight(_text_:22 in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096847914 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Eine Replik zu Auer: OPAC und Zeichensatz (Mitteilungen der VÖB 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22)

0.024211979 = product of:
  0.048423957 = sum of:
    0.048423957 = product of:
      0.096847914 = sum of:
        0.096847914 = weight(_text_:22 in 7584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096847914 = score(doc=7584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekare. 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22

0.024211979 = product of:
  0.048423957 = sum of:
    0.048423957 = product of:
      0.096847914 = sum of:
        0.096847914 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096847914 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.10, S.326-330

0.024211979 = product of:
  0.048423957 = sum of:
    0.048423957 = product of:
      0.096847914 = sum of:
        0.096847914 = weight(_text_:22 in 4513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096847914 = score(doc=4513,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4513, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 3.2000 15:22:58

0.021843962 = product of:
  0.043687925 = sum of:
    0.043687925 = product of:
      0.08737585 = sum of:
        0.08737585 = weight(_text_:engines in 2410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08737585 = score(doc=2410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 2410, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Paper presented at the 14th biennal conf. of IATUL, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 8.-12.7.1991: new technologies and information services - evolution or revolution? Ed.: Jay K. Lucker and published by the British Library on behalf of IATUL. The provision of enhanced subject access and access to a wider variety of bibliographic resources for library users have been influenced by technology. This has occured throuigh advances in workstations, storage media, graphics, networks and search engines such as BRS/SEARCH. Presents the results of a study by the Council of Library Resources on online catalogues. Discusses access to the periodical literature, library workstations, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign library's microcomputer workstation, the OKAPI search system for online catalogues and the Scottish Academic Libraries Bibliographic Information Network

0.021843962 = product of:
  0.043687925 = sum of:
    0.043687925 = product of:
      0.08737585 = sum of:
        0.08737585 = weight(_text_:engines in 4694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08737585 = score(doc=4694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 4694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In one form or another, from a mental list in the mind of the librarian, to book catalogs, card indexes, and online information retrieval systems, some type of meta access has existed to guide library users through library collections. Over the last 40 years, these constructs of paper and wood evolved into Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). When the catalog shifted out of drawers and off of three by five cards to become a networked, universally accessible entity, its role in the library shifted as well. The OPAC competes with the World Wide Web, metadata registries, search engines, and more sophisticated database structures for attention. Amongst this assortment of access mechanisms, the purpose of the OPAC has become muddled. The OPAC has now become one information source among many and one of a number of portals for accessing library collections and beyond.

0.020753123 = product of:
  0.041506246 = sum of:
    0.041506246 = product of:
      0.08301249 = sum of:
        0.08301249 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08301249 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57