Search (122 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Kneifel, F.: Mit Web 2.0 zum Online-Katalog der nächsten Generation (2009) 0.06 
    0.059123915 = product of:
  0.14780979 = sum of:
    0.070890784 = weight(_text_:wide in 2919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070890784 = score(doc=2919,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 2919, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2919)
    0.076919004 = weight(_text_:web in 2919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076919004 = score(doc=2919,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 2919, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2919)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Das Web 2.0 hat auch bei Bibliotheksnutzern zu veränderten Erwartungshaltungen an bibliothekarische Online-Angebote wie die Kataloge geführt. Diese waren lange Zeit statische Nachweisinstrumente, die heutzutage über das Angebot reiner Bestandsverzeichnisse hinausgehend verschiedene Web 2.0-Funktionalitäten sowie Zusatzinformationen mittels Kataloganreicherung integrierten sollten, um den Erwartungen der Nutzer zu genügen. Die Ergebnisse einer Online-Umfrage unter Nutzern einer Großstadtbibliothek unterstreichen dies: die Nutzer wünschen sich vielfältige Browsingmöglichkeiten, Google-ähnliche Suchmöglichkeiten, zusätzliche Inhalte und ein personalisier-bares Angebot. Welche Funktionen und Inhalte sollte ein Bibliothekskatalog im Zeitalter des Web 2.0 bieten? Am Beispiel der Stadtbücherei Frankfurt wird dargestellt wie Prinzipien des Web 2.0 - u.a. Nutzerfreundlichkeit und Kollaboration - auf das Online-Angebot übertragbar sind, ohne dabei den Personalaufwand, die rechtliche Absicherung der Bibliothek und Fragen der technischen Implementierung zu vergessen.
    Content
    Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Univ., Masterarbeit, 2008 u.d.T.: Welche Funktionen und Inhalte sollte ein Bibliothekskatalog im Zeitalter des Web 2.0 bieten?
    RSWK
    Online-Katalog / World Wide Web 2.0 / Hochschulschrift
    Subject
    Online-Katalog / World Wide Web 2.0 / Hochschulschrift
  2. Cerbo II, M.A.: Is there a future for library catalogers? (2011) 0.05 
    0.04948629 = product of:
  0.12371573 = sum of:
    0.080203764 = weight(_text_:wide in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080203764 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
    0.04351196 = weight(_text_:web in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04351196 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Is there a future for the library cataloger? For the past thirty years this debate has increased with the continued growth of online resources and greater access to the World Wide Web. Many are concerned that library administrators believe budgetary resources would be better spent on other matters, leaving library users with an overabundance of electronic information to muddle through on their own. This article focuses on the future of the cataloging profession and its importance to the needs of library patrons.
  3. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.04 
    0.04482936 = product of:
  0.1120734 = sum of:
    0.08702392 = weight(_text_:web in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08702392 = score(doc=2905,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
    0.025049476 = product of:
      0.050098952 = sum of:
        0.050098952 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050098952 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Der Artikel betrachtet anhand einer Studie zum Benutzerverhalten bei der Online-Katalogrecherche den gegenwärtigen Stellenwert und das zukünftige Potential der Web-OPACs. Dabei werden zunächst die Ergebnisse einer quantitativen Logfile-Analyse sowie qualitativer Benutzertests erörtert, bevor aktuelle Entwicklungen der Webtechnologie, die unter den Schlagworten Web 2.0 und Web 3.0 propagiert werden, im Zusammenhang mit der Online-Recherche und der Entwicklung neuartiger Suchverfahren kurz diskutiert werden.
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
  4. Hafter, R.: ¬The performance of card catalogs : a review of research (1979) 0.04 
    0.038850594 = product of:
  0.19425297 = sum of:
    0.19425297 = sum of:
      0.09405506 = weight(_text_:research in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09405506 = score(doc=3069,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.71324587 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.100197904 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100197904 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, 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=3069)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    3.10.2000 20:48:22
    Source
    Library research. 1(1979), S.199-222
  5. Eversberg, B.: Wie sagt man's dem Benutzer? : Bemerkungen zur öffentlichen Sprache der Bibliotheken (2002) 0.03 
    0.033445537 = product of:
  0.08361384 = sum of:
    0.040101882 = weight(_text_:wide in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040101882 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
    0.04351196 = weight(_text_:web in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04351196 = score(doc=1096,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Bibliotheken können heute im World Wide Web ein größeres Publikum "ansprechen" als jemals zuvor. Seit längerem war aufgefallen, dass Bibliotheken in ihren Web-Angeboten sprachlich und vor allem terminologisch durchaus uneinheitlich auftreten. Es erscheint wünschenswert, dass Bibliotheken trotz aller äußerlichen Unterschiede des Erscheinungsbildes (Homepage-Design) nicht als einzelne, unverbundene Einrichtungen wahrgenommen werden, sondern dass Gemeinsamkeiten hervortreten, durch die sich Bibliotheken von anderen Anbietern im Web unterscheiden. Dazu gehört eine gemeinsame Terminologie und ein sprachliches Niveau, das zeitgemäßen Erwartungen entspricht, ohne aufdringlich zu sein, und das die Waage hält zwischen unangemessen vergröbernder Popularisierung oder oberflächlichem Marktschreiertum und dem zwar präzisen, aber für Außenstehende unzugänglichen Fachjargon. Von Anbeginn sollte man sich auch über dieses im Klaren sein: es gibt auch anspruchsvolle Benutzer, die ein auch in sprachlicher Hinsicht niveauvolles Angebot zu schätzen wissen. Werden sie uns ernst nehmen, wenn wir einseitig eine Annäherung an ein möglichst niedriges Niveau versuchen, mit der allzu deutlich durchscheinenden Bemühung, "alles ganz einfach" zu machen? Ursache für einen großen Teil der Divergenzen im Sprachgebrauch ist sicherlich die "Modernisierung". Bibliotheken stellen sich neuen Herausforderungen, aber die Sprache hält nicht immer Schritt (sondern bleibt zu stark buchbezogen) oder wagt sich zu weit vor auf noch unsicheres Terrain (erkennbar meist an einem Übermaß an Neologismen, insbesondere Anglizismen). Modewörter erkennt man nicht immer sofort als solche, aber der Bedarf für neue Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten kann nicht ignoriert werden. Es besteht jedoch ein Dilemma: Bibliotheken haben nicht die Art von "Ausstrahlung", Autorität oder Präsenz im öffentlichen Raum, die sprachliche Impulse geben kann. Davon sind sie weit entfernt, darüber verfügen heute wohl nur die Medien und die Werbung. Nur vereintes, einvernehmliches und einheitliches Vorgehen könnte die Chancen geringfügig vergrößern: eine konsistent verwendete und durchdachte Terminologie kann immerhin einen Wiedererkennungswert erreichen und den Bibliothekskontext als ein größeres Ganzes erlebbar machen.
    Footnote
    Teil eines Heftschwerpunktes: 'Bibliothekarische Web-Sites'
  6. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.03 
    0.032142293 = product of:
  0.080355726 = sum of:
    0.05209388 = weight(_text_:wide in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05209388 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.2543695 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.028261848 = weight(_text_:web in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028261848 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.18735787 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
    The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
  7. Hillmann, D.I.: "Parallel universes" or meaningful relationships : envisioning a future for the OPAC and the net (1996) 0.03 
    0.027424574 = product of:
  0.068561435 = sum of:
    0.04351196 = weight(_text_:web in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04351196 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    0.025049476 = product of:
      0.050098952 = sum of:
        0.050098952 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050098952 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Over the past year, innumerable discussions on the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the newly burgeoning World WideWeb have occured in many libraries and in virtually every library related discussion list. Rumors and speculation abound, some insisting that SGML will replace USMARC "soon," others maintaining that OPACs that haven't migrated to the Web will go the way of the dinosaurs.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103
  8. Hahn, U.; Schulze, M.: Katalogerweiterungen, Mashups und Elemente der Bibliothek 2.0" in der Praxis : der Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek der Helmut-Schmidt-Universität (IHSU) Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg (2009) 0.02 
    0.02241468 = product of:
  0.0560367 = sum of:
    0.04351196 = weight(_text_:web in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04351196 = score(doc=2672,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
    0.012524738 = product of:
      0.025049476 = sum of:
        0.025049476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049476 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, 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=2672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Die verschiedenen unter dem Schlagwort "Bibliothek 2.0" zusammengefassten neuen Dienste und Komponenten wie etwa Wikis, Tagging-Systeme und Blogs sind seit einiger Zeit in aller Munde und dringen über Fortbildungsveranstaltungen, Konferenzen und Publikationsorgane immer mehr in das deutschsprachige Bibliothekswesen ein. Darüber hinaus gibt es öffentlich geförderte Projekte zu bibliothekarischen 2.0-Themen und sogar ein Projekt, welches sich explizit einen 2.0-Katalog zum Ziel gesetzt hat. In diesem Beitrag soll es nun nicht um die Vorstellung eines weiteren Projekts im Dienste des Themas "Bibliothek 2.0" gehen, ebenso hat dieser Beitrag nicht den Anspruch, die Diskussion über die möglichen Vor- oder Nachteile dieser Thematik auf theoretischer Ebene voranzubringen. Vielmehr wird hier ganz praktisch aus Sicht einer kleinen Universitätsbibliothek, der Bibliothek der Helmut-SchmidtUniversität (HSU) - Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, aufgezeigt, wie das Thema "Web/Bibliothek 2.0" durchaus neben und in Unterstützung von weiteren nutzerorientierten Servicedienstleistungen auch in kleinen Schritten positive Auswirkungen für die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer haben kann. Der Focus wird dabei auf dem zentralen Arbeits- und Rechercheinstrument der Bibliotheksnutzer liegen, dem Bibliothekskatalog. Speziell wird es darum gehen, wie auf relativ einfache Art und Weise durch Anwendung verschiedener Elemente anderer Dienste und Anbieter sowie das Aufgreifen von Schnittstellen und wenig aufwendigen Verbesserungen, Mehrwert für die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer zu erzielen ist. Ein zentraler Begriff bei fast allen Überlegungen, die im Zusammenhang mit der Verbesserung und Anreicherung des Kataloges stehen, war und ist das Thema "Mash-up". Unter Mashups - ein Begriff, der gerade im Zusammenhang mit dem Thema "Web 2.0" im deutschsprachigen Raum eingeführt und adaptiert wurde - wird das Verfahren bezeichnet, Web-Inhalte neu zu kombinieren. Dabei nutzt man bei und für Mashups offene "APIs" (Application Programming Interfaces, also offene Programmierschnittstellen), die von anderen Web-Anwendungen zur Verfügung gestellt werden.
    Date
    22. 2.2009 19:40:38
  9. Gallaway, T.O.; Hines, M.F.: Competitive usability and the catalogue : a process for justification and selection of a next-generation catalogue or Web-scale discovery system (2012) 0.02 
    0.019540487 = product of:
  0.048851214 = sum of:
    0.038459502 = weight(_text_:web in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038459502 = score(doc=5562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.010391714 = product of:
      0.020783428 = sum of:
        0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020783428 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This case study demonstrates how competitive usability testing informs the selection and purchase of a next-generation catalogue (NGC) or Web-scale discovery system (WSDS) to enhance a current library catalogue. Using competitive usability techniques, the authors explain how different NGCs and WSDSs solve issues that catalogue users may face when searching for materials in the online catalogue. The goal of this study is to provide a framework that identifies concrete evidence in support of purchase recommendations for an effective system that adequately addresses locally identified issues with catalogue searches. The process of selecting live system implementations from peer institutions is outlined. Steps include surveying library staff about their current library catalogue. Survey results and documented reference questions provided the foundation for user tasks created by testers for use in this study. This multifaceted research design resulted in a case study that captures current issues that users encounter in the discovery and access to library materials and shows how to include competitive usability techniques as part of a purchase rationale while assessing how well a variety of next-generation discovery and access systems address users' issues.
  10. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.02 
    0.019425297 = product of:
  0.097126484 = sum of:
    0.097126484 = sum of:
      0.04702753 = weight(_text_:research in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04702753 = score(doc=256,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
      0.050098952 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050098952 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  11. Clarke, R.I.: Cataloging research by design : a taxonomic approach to understanding research questions in cataloging (2018) 0.02 
    0.0186684 = product of:
  0.093342 = sum of:
    0.093342 = sum of:
      0.055767786 = weight(_text_:research in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055767786 = score(doc=5188,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.42290276 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
      0.037574213 = weight(_text_:22 in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037574213 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5188, 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=5188)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This article asserts that many research questions (RQs) in cataloging reflect design-based RQs, rather than traditional scientific ones. To support this idea, a review of existing discussions of RQs is presented to identify prominent types of RQs, including design-based RQs. RQ types are then classified into a taxonomic framework and compared with RQs from the Everyday Cataloger Concerns project, which aimed to identify important areas of research from the perspective of practicing catalogers. This comparative method demonstrates the ways in which the research areas identified by cataloging practitioners reflect design RQs-and therefore require design approaches and methods to answer them.
    Date
    30. 5.2019 19:14:22
  12. Homan, P.A.: Library catalog notes for "bad books" : ethics vs. responsibilities (2012) 0.02 
    0.017140359 = product of:
  0.042850897 = sum of:
    0.027194975 = weight(_text_:web in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027194975 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.015655924 = product of:
      0.031311847 = sum of:
        0.031311847 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031311847 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."
    Date
    27. 9.2012 14:22:00
  13. Sauperl, A.; Saye, J.D.: Have we made any progress? : catalogues of the future revisited (2009) 0.02 
    0.01675643 = product of:
  0.041891076 = sum of:
    0.027194975 = weight(_text_:web in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027194975 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
    0.014696103 = product of:
      0.029392205 = sum of:
        0.029392205 = weight(_text_:research in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029392205 = score(doc=2843,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
  14. Calhoun, K.: ¬The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools : Prepared for the Library of Congress (2006) 0.02 
    0.016138097 = product of:
  0.040345244 = sum of:
    0.02175598 = weight(_text_:web in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02175598 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
    0.018589262 = product of:
      0.037178524 = sum of:
        0.037178524 = weight(_text_:research in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037178524 = score(doc=5013,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.2819352 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.
  15. Mönnich, M.; Spiering, M.: Einsatz von BibTip als Recommendersystem m Bibliothekskatalog (2008) 0.02 
    0.015034676 = product of:
  0.03758669 = sum of:
    0.027194975 = weight(_text_:web in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027194975 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
    0.010391714 = product of:
      0.020783428 = sum of:
        0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020783428 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Im Folgenden wird die Dienstleistung BibTip (http://bibtip.org) beschrieben, die einem Bibliothekskatalog eine Empfehlungskomponente hinzufügt. Dieser innovative Dienst ist ein wichtiger Baustein in der Entwicklung von bibliothekarischen Katalogen in Richtung des Web 2.0 und wird von der Universitätsbibliothek Karlsruhe als Dienst für andere Bibliotheken angeboten.
    Content
    Das Karlsruher Recommendersystem BibTip An der Universität Karlsruhe wurden im Zeitraum von 2002 bis 2007 mehrere DFG-Projekte durchgeführt, welche die Entwicklung von Recommendersystemen für den Einsatz in Bibliotheken zum Gegenstand hatten. Daraus ist BibTip hervorgegangen. Projektpartner waren dabei die Universitätsbibliothek Karlsruhe und das Institut für Informationswirtschaft und -management von Prof. Dr. Andreas Geyer-Schulz an der Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften (http://www.em.unikarlsruhe.de/research/projects/reckvk/). Im Institut wurden die Algorithmen und die technischen Grundlagen von BibTip entwickelt. Die Bibliothek war für die Einbindung in den Katalog, die Erfassung des statistischen Datenmaterials und die Entwicklung der Dienstleistung BibTip verantwortlich. Das Projekt war so erfolgreich, dass es im Auftrag der DFG von den Projektnehmern im Dezember beim Fall 2007 Task Force Meeting der Coalition for Networked Information in Washington DC präsentiert wurde. Bei BibTip handelt es sich um einen verhaltensbasierten Recommender. Dieser Typus von Recommenderdiensten basiert auf der - im Fall von BibTip anonymisierten - Beobachtung von Nutzerverhalten und der statistischen Auswertung dieser Daten. Im Internet-Handel ergeben sich die Nutzungsdaten aus Kaufvorgängen oder aus den Klicks auf Links in Webseiten. Im Falle von BibTip sind es die Aufrufe von Volltitelanzeigen im Online-Katalog.
  16. Randall, N.B.: Spelling errors in the database : shadow or substance? (1999) 0.01 
    0.014586675 = product of:
  0.072933376 = sum of:
    0.072933376 = sum of:
      0.029096797 = weight(_text_:research in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029096797 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
      0.043836582 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043836582 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  17. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01 
    0.014586675 = product of:
  0.072933376 = sum of:
    0.072933376 = sum of:
      0.029096797 = weight(_text_:research in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029096797 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.043836582 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043836582 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Ducharme, C.: ¬Le catalogue, signe du changement (1997) 0.01 
    0.014035659 = product of:
  0.07017829 = sum of:
    0.07017829 = weight(_text_:wide in 905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07017829 = score(doc=905,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 905, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=905)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Digital documents and Internet access are changing cataloguing practices. MARC formats can accomodate Internet documents by assigning a field for URL but quality control is vital, especially with multimedia catalogues, and new links have to be created. Heterogeneous distant resources can now be searches using the Z39.50 standard, thus enabling access to a wide range of diverse catalogues, and Internet formats are being used to create local systems (intranets). The librarian needs new skills to manipulate digital documents and use information technology tool but the mission is the same: to optimise access to the widest possible range of information
  19. Voss, J.: LibraryThing : Web 2.0 für Literaturfreunde und Bibliotheken (2007) 0.01 
    0.014009175 = product of:
  0.035022937 = sum of:
    0.027194975 = weight(_text_:web in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027194975 = score(doc=1847,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
    0.007827962 = product of:
      0.015655924 = sum of:
        0.015655924 = weight(_text_:22 in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015655924 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken Bereits früh setzte sich Tim Spalding für eine Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken ein. Zum Eintragen von neuen Büchern in LibraryThing können zahlreiche Bibliothekskataloge ausgewählt werden, die via Z39.50 eingebunden werden - seit Oktober 2006 ist auch der GBV dabei. Im April 2007 veröffentlichte Tim Spalding mit LibraryThing for Libraries ein Reihe von Webservices, die Bibliotheken in ihre OPACs einbinden können.4 Ein Webservice ist eine Funktion, die von anderen Programmen über das Web aufgerufen werden kann und Daten zurückliefert. Bereits seit Juni 2006 können über verschiedene offene LibraryThing-Webservices unter Anderem zu einer gegebenen ISBN die Sprache und eine Liste von ISBNs anderer Auflagen und Übersetzungen ermittelt werden, die zum gleichen Werk gehören (thinglSBN). Damit setzt LibraryThing praktisch einen Teil der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) um, die in bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Fachkreisen bereits seit Anfang der 1990er diskutiert werden, aber bislang nicht so Recht ihre Umsetzung in Katalogen gefunden haben. Die Information darüber, welche Bücher zum gleichen Werk gehören, wird von der LibraryThing-Community bereitgestellt; jeder Benutzer kann einzelne Ausgaben mit einem Klick zusammenführen oder wieder trennen. Vergleiche mit dem ähnlichen Dienst xISBN von OCLC zeigen, dass sich thinglSBN und xISBN gut ergänzen, allerdings bietet LibraryThing seinen Webservice im Gegensatz zu OCLC kostenlos an. Neben Empfehlungen von verwandten Büchern ist es im Rahmen von LibraryThing for Libraries auch möglich, die von den Nutzern vergebenen Tags in den eigenen Katalog einzubinden. Ein Nachteil dabei ist allerdings die bisherige Übermacht der englischen Sprache und dass nur selbständige Titel mit ISBN berücksichtigt werden. Die VZG prüft derzeit, in welcher Form LibraryThing for Libraries am besten in GBV-Bibliotheken umgesetzt werden kann. Es spricht allerdings für jede einzelne Bibliothek nichts dagegen, schon jetzt damit zu experimentieren, wie der eigene OPAC mit zusätzlichen Links und Tags von LibraryThing aussehen könnte. Darüber hinaus können sich auch Bibliotheken mit einem eigenen Zugang als Nutzer in LibraryThing beteiligen. So stellt beispielsweise die Stadtbücherei Nordenham bereits seit Ende 2005 ihre Neuzugänge im Erwachsenenbestand in einer Sammlung bei LibraryThing ein.
    Beispiel für die Anwendung von LibraryThing for Libraries im Katalog des Waterford Institute of Technology (): Zu einer ISBN werden auf Basis der in LibraryThing gesammelten Daten andere Auflagen und Übersetzungen, ähnliche Bücher und Tags eingeblendet. Soziale Software lebt vom Mitmachen Vieles spricht dafür, dass LibraryThing auf dem besten Weg ist, sich zu einem der wichtigsten Web 2.0-Dienste für die Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken zu entwickeln. Wie schon bei Wikipedia gibt es allerdings noch viel zu oft Berührungsängste und die Vorstellung, dass sich diese Dienste erst durch Hilfe von Außen in der eigenen Einrichtung einführen ließen. Soziale Software lebt jedoch von der Zusammenarbeit und dem freien Austausch von Gedanken und Informationen. Deshalb hilft nur eins: Ausprobieren und Mitmachen. Ebenso wie Wikipedia schwer zu beurteilen ist, ohne selbst mit anderen Wikipedianern einen Artikel erstellt und diskutiert zu haben, erschließt sich LibraryThing erst vollständig durch eine eigene dort angelegte Büchersammlung. Zum Kennenlernen reicht der kostenlose Zugang und mit 15 $ Jahresgebühr können auch Bibliotheken problemlos bis zu 5.000 Medieneinheiten pro Sammlung einstellen. Wenn Sie erstmal mehr mit Library-Thing vertraut sind, werden Ihnen sicherlich weitere Einsatzmöglichkeiten für Ihre Einrichtung und deren Nutzer einfallen. LibraryThing entwickelt sich beständig weiter und dürfte noch für einige Überraschungen gut sein.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 10:36:23
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  20. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.01 
    0.013712287 = product of:
  0.034280717 = sum of:
    0.02175598 = weight(_text_:web in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02175598 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.012524738 = product of:
      0.025049476 = sum of:
        0.025049476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025049476 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity
    Date
    17. 6.2015 14:40:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 79
  • d 36
  • f 2
  • sp 2
  • a 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 101
  • el 10
  • m 7
  • r 6
  • s 4
  • b 3
  • x 3
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications