Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.053236254 = product of:
  0.10647251 = sum of:
    0.10647251 = product of:
      0.21294501 = sum of:
        0.21294501 = weight(_text_:headings in 2823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21294501 = score(doc=2823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.8573571 = fieldWeight in 2823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.039927192 = product of:
  0.079854384 = sum of:
    0.079854384 = product of:
      0.15970877 = sum of:
        0.15970877 = weight(_text_:headings in 965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15970877 = score(doc=965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.6430178 = fieldWeight in 965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.037643716 = product of:
  0.07528743 = sum of:
    0.07528743 = product of:
      0.15057486 = sum of:
        0.15057486 = weight(_text_:headings in 1060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15057486 = score(doc=1060,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.606243 = fieldWeight in 1060, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since April 1986 the LoC has been distributing the machine-readable LSCH-mr in the form of a cumulative master tape and weekly tape update service. ... This paper details the characteristics of authority records for subject headings (MARC tag 150) ...

0.03327266 = product of:
  0.06654532 = sum of:
    0.06654532 = product of:
      0.13309065 = sum of:
        0.13309065 = weight(_text_:headings in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13309065 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.5358482 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An experimental online catalog was developed that provided searchers with several different subject searching strategies. Analyses of retrieval test data suggest that searchers expect alphabetical searches to provide lists of assigned subject headings conceptually related to their topics of interest. System designers can now respond to their expectation by incorporating LCSH-mr in online catalogs

0.011645431 = product of:
  0.023290861 = sum of:
    0.023290861 = product of:
      0.046581723 = sum of:
        0.046581723 = weight(_text_:headings in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046581723 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.18754686 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.