Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

0.037199963 = product of:
  0.074399926 = sum of:
    0.074399926 = product of:
      0.14879985 = sum of:
        0.14879985 = weight(_text_:headings in 2549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14879985 = score(doc=2549,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.5990965 = fieldWeight in 2549, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims at providing a robust, user-friendly and efficient navigation procedure in an online library catalog that is based on semantic information encapsulated within subject headings. Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes an interactive navigation procedure inside an online library catalog based on semantic information. The proposed approach is presented through a web-based, prototype application following the most recent trends of the semantic web such as AJAX technology and the web ontology language - OWL for encoding semantics. Findings - According to the proposed method, a GUI interface exposes the hierarchy of the subject headings employed within an OPAC, as well as all stated relations between such headings, as links that the user can follow, effectively traversing the ontology and formulating at the same time the actual query to the underlying OPAC. This act of interactive navigation through the library's assets aids searchers in accurately formulating their queries, by offering broader or narrower concepts for selection or indicating alternative or related concepts they might be initially unaware of. The augmented exposition of inter-relations between concepts provides multiple paths for information retrieval and enables searchers to fulfill their information needs in a faster, more efficient and intuitive manner. Practical implications - The paper includes implications for the development of modern, semantic web applications focused on the library domain. The novel approach of visualizing subject headings could be further extended to visualize a number of other conceptualizations of the library domain. Originality/value - This paper fulfils an identified need to take advantage of the "hidden knowledge" existing within the library domain but, for a number of reasons, is never exposed to the library users.

0.03543319 = product of:
  0.07086638 = sum of:
    0.07086638 = sum of:
      0.046581723 = weight(_text_:headings in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046581723 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211677 = queryNorm
          0.18754686 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
      0.024284663 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024284663 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211677 = 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

0.023527324 = product of:
  0.04705465 = sum of:
    0.04705465 = product of:
      0.0941093 = sum of:
        0.0941093 = weight(_text_:headings in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0941093 = score(doc=2588,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.3789019 = fieldWeight in 2588, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to describe a proof of concept web application designed to allow users to search for library materials with geographic subject headings using Google Maps as the primary interface for navigation. The purpose of the paper is to describe the development of an innovative tool that one library has created to provide users with a new way to access bibliographic records. Design/methodology/approach - The approach taken is descriptive, with the development process for the proof of concept laid out in detail and placed it within the broader contexts of web application development at the host library and the emergence of Web 2.0 tools. Findings - The paper shows that unique and valuable new methods of accessing bibliographic data can be created through the use of application programming interfaces (APIs), one of the more powerful tools available to web application developers today. Research limitations/implications - Challenges of working with geographic information in subject headings of bibliographic records are discussed, and potential methods for dealing with these challenges are described. Originality/value - The paper shows that it is possible to use APIs provided by large internet entities such as Google to create map based navigational tools for accessing bibliographic information. It also shows the value of allowing library systems staff to explore new technologies.

0.023290861 = product of:
  0.046581723 = sum of:
    0.046581723 = product of:
      0.093163446 = sum of:
        0.093163446 = weight(_text_:headings in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093163446 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines some traditional information searching methods and their role in Hungarian OPACs. What challenges are there in the digital and online environment? How do users work with them and do they give users satisfactory results? What kinds of techniques are users employing? In this paper I examine the user interfaces of UDC, thesauri, subject headings etc. in the Hungarian library. The key question of the paper is whether a universal system or local solutions is the best approach for searching in the digital environment.

0.019963596 = product of:
  0.039927192 = sum of:
    0.039927192 = product of:
      0.079854384 = sum of:
        0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079854384 = score(doc=5012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgement or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model - and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.

0.016469125 = product of:
  0.03293825 = sum of:
    0.03293825 = product of:
      0.0658765 = sum of:
        0.0658765 = weight(_text_:headings in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0658765 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2652313 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Subject searching is the most common but also the most conflictive searching for end user. The aim of this paper is to check how users expressions match subject headings and to prove if knowledge structure used in online catalogs enhances searching effectiveness. A bibliographic revision about difficulties in subject access and proposed methods to improve it is also presented. For the empirical analysis, transaction logs from two university libraries, online catalogs (CISNE and FAMA) were collected. Results show that more than a quarter of user queries are effective due to an alphabetical subject index approach and browsing through hypertextual links. 1. Introduction Since the 1980's, online public access catalogs (OPAC's) have become usual way to access bibliographic information. During the last two decades the technological development has helped to extend their use, making feasible the access for a whole of users that is getting more and more extensive and heterogeneous, and also to incorporate information resources in electronic formats and to interconnect systems. However, technology seems to have developed faster than our knowledge about the tasks where it has been applied and than the evolution of our capacities for adapting to it. The conceptual model of OPAC has been hardly modified recently, and for interacting with them, users still need to combine the same skills and basic knowledge than at the beginning of its introduction (Borgman, 1986, 2000): a) conceptual knowledge to translate the information need into an appropriate query because of a well-designed mental model of the system, b) semantic and syntactic knowledge to be able to implement that query (access fields, searching type, Boolean logic, etc.) and c) basic technical skills in computing. At present many users have the essential technical skills to make use, with more or less expertise, of a computer. This number is substantially reduced when it is referred to the conceptual, semantic and syntactic knowledge that is necessary to achieve a moderately satisfactory search. An added difficulty arises in subject searching, as users should concrete their unknown information needs in terms that the information retrieval system can understand. Many researches have focused an unskilled searchers' difficulties to enter an effective query. The mental models influence, users assumption about characteristics, structure, contents and operation of the system they interact with have been analysed (Dillon, 2000; Dimitroff, 2000). Another issue that implies difficulties is vocabulary: how to find the right terms to implement a query and to modify it as the case may be. Terminology and expressions characteristics used in searching (Bates, 1993), the match between user terms and the subject headings from the catalog (Carlyle, 1989; Drabensttot, 1996; Drabensttot & Vizine-Goetz, 1994), the incidence of spelling errors (Drabensttot and Weller, 1996; Ferl and Millsap, 1996; Walker and Jones, 1987), users problems

0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.013309063 = product of:
  0.026618127 = sum of:
    0.026618127 = product of:
      0.053236254 = sum of:
        0.053236254 = weight(_text_:headings in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053236254 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.21433927 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.

0.012142331 = product of:
  0.024284663 = sum of:
    0.024284663 = product of:
      0.048569325 = sum of:
        0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048569325 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.012142331 = product of:
  0.024284663 = sum of:
    0.024284663 = product of:
      0.048569325 = sum of:
        0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048569325 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2207, 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=2207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 8.2008 11:22:47

0.012142331 = product of:
  0.024284663 = sum of:
    0.024284663 = product of:
      0.048569325 = sum of:
        0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048569325 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3599, 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=3599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

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.

0.010407712 = product of:
  0.020815425 = sum of:
    0.020815425 = product of:
      0.04163085 = sum of:
        0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163085 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1187, 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=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.010407712 = product of:
  0.020815425 = sum of:
    0.020815425 = product of:
      0.04163085 = sum of:
        0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163085 = score(doc=4183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4183, 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=4183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 1.2007 18:22:15

0.010407712 = product of:
  0.020815425 = sum of:
    0.020815425 = product of:
      0.04163085 = sum of:
        0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163085 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.009981798 = product of:
  0.019963596 = sum of:
    0.019963596 = product of:
      0.039927192 = sum of:
        0.039927192 = weight(_text_:headings in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039927192 = score(doc=1558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.16075446 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"MOST INTEGRATED library systems, as they are currently configured and used, should be removed from public view. Before I say why, let me be clean that I think the integrated library system serves a very important, albeit limited, role. An integrated library system should serve as a key piece of the infrastructure of a library, handling such tasks as ma terials acquisition, cataloging (including holdings, of course), and circulation. The integrated library system should be a complete and accurate recording of a local library's holdings. It should not be presented to users as the primary system for locating information. It fails badly at that important job. - Lack of content- The central problem of almost any library catalog system is that it typically includes only information about the books and journals held by a parficular library. Most do not provide access to joumal article indexes, web search engines, or even selective web directories like the Librarians' Index to the Internet. If they do offen such access, it is only via links to these services. The library catalog is far from onestop shopping for information. Although we acknowledge that fact to each other, we still treat it as if it were the best place in the universe to begin a search. Most of us give the catalog a place of great prominente an our web pages. But Information for each book is limited to the author, title, and a few subject headings. Seldom can book reviews, jacket summaries, recommendations, or tables of contents be found-or anything at all to help users determine if they want the material. - Lack of coverage - Most catalogs do not allow patrons to discover even all the books that are available to them. If you're lucky, your catalog may cover the collections of those libraries with which you have close ties-such as a regional network. But that leaves out all those items that could be requested via interlibrary loan. As Steve Coffman pointed out in his "Building Earth's Largest Library" article, we must show our users the universe that is open to them, highlight the items most accessible, and provide an estimate of how long it would take to obtain other items. - Inability to increase coverage - Despite some well-meaning attempts to smash everything of interest into the library catalog, the fact remains that most integrated library systems expect MARC records and MARC records only. This means that whatever we want to put into the catalog must be described using MARC and AACR2 (see "Marc Must Die," LJ 10/15/02, p. 26ff.). This is a barrier to dramatically increasing the scope of a catalog system, even if we decided to do it. How would you, for example, use the Open Archives Initiative Harvesting Protocol to crawl the bibliographic records of remote repositories and make them searchable within your library catalog? It can't be dope, and it shouldn't. The library catalog should be a record of a given library's holdings. Period.

0.008673094 = product of:
  0.017346188 = sum of:
    0.017346188 = product of:
      0.034692377 = sum of:
        0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692377 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

0.008673094 = product of:
  0.017346188 = sum of:
    0.017346188 = product of:
      0.034692377 = sum of:
        0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692377 = score(doc=1942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1942, 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=1942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2008 17:14:24

0.006938475 = product of:
  0.01387695 = sum of:
    0.01387695 = product of:
      0.0277539 = sum of:
        0.0277539 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0277539 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.006938475 = product of:
  0.01387695 = sum of:
    0.01387695 = product of:
      0.0277539 = sum of:
        0.0277539 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0277539 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22