Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02858579 = product of:
  0.07146447 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3013, 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=3013)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The primary objective of the present study was to exmine whether readers conducting bibliographic searches in ALEPH - Israel's research library network - tend to search only within the OPAC of the library within which they are working or whether they access the remote OPACs of other libraries. The ALEPH network has a dezentralized database. Therefore, it was possible to examine this question because each library has its own access code and each database can be searched separately. The data were collected by means of a one-page questionnaire lefr beside each terminal in the library of the Graduate School of Library and Archive Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during an entire academic years. results of analysis of the data collected in this survey are presented in 6 tables

Date

22. 2.1999 13:06:18

0.022658026 = product of:
  0.11329012 = sum of:
    0.11329012 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11329012 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Cogito. 9(1993) H.2, S.18-22

0.019825771 = product of:
  0.09912886 = sum of:
    0.09912886 = weight(_text_:22 in 8109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09912886 = score(doc=8109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8109)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Cogito. 10(1994) H.4, S.17-22

0.019825771 = product of:
  0.09912886 = sum of:
    0.09912886 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09912886 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30.11.1995 20:53:22

0.016993519 = product of:
  0.08496759 = sum of:
    0.08496759 = weight(_text_:22 in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08496759 = score(doc=354,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 354, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=354)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Com!. 1997, H.8, S.22-24

0.016993519 = product of:
  0.08496759 = sum of:
    0.08496759 = weight(_text_:22 in 5935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08496759 = score(doc=5935,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5935, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5935)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Internet Professionell 2000, H.2, S.22

0.014161265 = product of:
  0.070806324 = sum of:
    0.070806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070806324 = score(doc=877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 877, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=877)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.22-31

0.014161265 = product of:
  0.070806324 = sum of:
    0.070806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070806324 = score(doc=2955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2955)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

19. 2.1999 20:21:22

0.011831312 = product of:
  0.05915656 = sum of:
    0.05915656 = weight(_text_:it in 4898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915656 = score(doc=4898,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.39137068 = fieldWeight in 4898, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4898)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article will examine the Z39.50 Information Retrieval protocol. It will look at some of the history of the protocol, its operation, and some of the major projects that have made use of it. There has been enough written (perhaps too much) about Z39.50 in the last several years so it is not intended to be a tutorial or detailed description of the protocol. The material that will be presented will try and put some context around the discussion. For those readers who are interested in delving into Z39.50 in a more technical manner, references to much of the material that has been written about it over the years will be provided at the end. Finally, the article will conclude with some thoughts on how technology and technological infrastructure have changed in the years since Z39.50 was initially developed and deployed, and where the protocol has so far lived up to its goals, and where it has perhaps failed to meet some of the high expectations that at least some people involved in the Z39.50 community held for it. The article will conclude with some of the author's speculations (and they are really no more than that) of what the future role of Z39.50 is likely to be.

0.009912886 = product of:
  0.04956443 = sum of:
    0.04956443 = weight(_text_:22 in 3696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04956443 = score(doc=3696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3696, 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=3696)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8. 1.2007 17:22:42

0.009660226 = product of:
  0.04830113 = sum of:
    0.04830113 = weight(_text_:it in 6770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04830113 = score(doc=6770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31955284 = fieldWeight in 6770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6770)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Describes the asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) protocol, technology and architecture, as well as the issues which it is designed to solve. Traces the evolution of ATM and examines the applications for which ATM is likely to be used. Describes comparisons made with alternative networking technologies and matters which require further solution

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 3133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=3133,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 3133, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3133)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a common user interface to enable searching of all databases regardless of producer, supplier or location, such as local CD-ROM, or network. Explains client server architecture, the basic component of a common user interface and outlines current developments including the Z39.50 application layer protocol. A common user interface will result in greater synergy between information providers, technology providers, distributors and information professionals. It will also be able to search across the Internet and make that huge wealth of data much more available than it currently is. Predicts that a common user interface will be in operation by the turn of the century

0.008694204 = product of:
  0.043471016 = sum of:
    0.043471016 = weight(_text_:it in 1262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043471016 = score(doc=1262,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.28759754 = fieldWeight in 1262, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1262)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Z39.50 standard for information retrieval is important from a number of perspectives. While still not widely known within the computer networking community, it is a mature standard that represents the culmination of two decades of thinking and debate about how information retrieval functions can be modeled, standardized, and implemented in a distributed systems environment. And - importantly -- it has been tested through substantial deployment experience. Z39.50 is one of the few examples we have to date of a protocol that actually goes beyond codifying mechanism and moves into the area of standardizing shared semantic knowledge. The extent to which this should be a goal of the protocol has been an ongoing source of controversy and tension within the developer community, and differing views on this issue can be seen both in the standard itself and the way that it is used in practice. Given the growing emphasis on issues such as "semantic interoperability" as part of the research agenda for digital libraries (see Clifford A. Lynch and Hector Garcia-Molina. Interoperability, Scaling, and the Digital Libraries Research Agenda, Report on the May 18-19, 1995 IITA Libraries Workshop, <http://www- diglib.stanford.edu/diglib/pub/reports/iita-dlw/main.html>), the insights gained by the Z39.50 community into the complex interactions among various definitions of semantics and interoperability are particularly relevant. The development process for the Z39.50 standard is also of interest in its own right. Its history, dating back to the 1970s, spans a period that saw the eclipse of formal standards-making agencies by groups such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and informal standards development consortia. Moreover, in order to achieve meaningful implementation, Z39.50 had to move beyond its origins in the OSI debacle of the 1980s. Z39.50 has also been, to some extent, a victim of its own success -- or at least promise. Recent versions of the standard are highly extensible, and the consensus process of standards development has made it hospitable to an ever-growing set of new communities and requirements. As this process of extension has proceeded, it has become ever less clear what the appropriate scope and boundaries of the protocol should be, and what expectations one should have of practical interoperability among implementations of the standard. Z39.50 thus offers an excellent case study of the problems involved in managing the evolution of a standard over time. It may well offer useful lessons for the future of other standards such as HTTP and HTML, which seem to be facing some of the same issues.
This paper, which will appear in two parts, starting with this issue of D-Lib, looks at several strategic issues surrounding Z39.50. After a relatively brief overview of the function and history of the protocol, I will examine some of the competing visions of the protocol's role, with emphasis on issues of interoperability and the incorporation of semantics. The second installment of the paper will look at questions related to the management of the standard and the standards development process, with emphasis on the scope of the protocol and how that relates back again to interoperability questions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the adoption and deployment of the standard, its relationship to other standards, and some speculations on future directions for the protocol. This paper is not intended to be a tutorial on the details of how current or past versions of Z39.50 work. These technical details are covered not only in the standard itself (which can admittedly be rather difficult reading) but also in an array of tutorial and review papers (see <http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency> for bibliographies and pointers to on-line information on Z39.50). Instead, the paper's focus is on how and why Z39.50 developed the way it did, and the conceptual debates that have influenced its evolution and use. While a detailed technical knowledge of the operation of Z39.50 is certainly helpful, it should not be necessary in order to follow most of the material here. Some disclaimers are in order. I have been actively involved in the development of Z39.50 since the early 1980s and have been a participant -- and on occasion, even an instigator -- of some of the activities described here. This paper is an attempt to make a critical assessment of the current state of Z39.50 and a review of its development with the full benefit of hindsight. It recounts a number of debates that occurred within the developer community over the past years. In many of these, I advocated specific positions or approaches, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully. What is presented here is one person's perspective - mine --, which is sometimes at odds with the current consensus with the developer community; I've tried to represent opposing views fairly, and to differentiate my opinions from fact or consensus. However, others will undoubtedly disagree with many of the comments here.

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 4831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=4831,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 4831, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4831)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

CD-ROM databases are finding a permanent niche in libraries and librarians are trained both to use each new product and to keep abreast of changes in them. From the library user point of view it is possible to dial into or remotely access CD-ROM databases. Discusses the use of the communications software pcAnywhere, examines the benefits to users and libraries of remote access, and lists other areas which might be of interest to learning resource centres in regard to CD-ROM services

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 6296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=6296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 6296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6296)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

'Remote control' programs allow users to dial into and use a PC from a location away from their office. Examines what is involved in setting up a PC as a 'mini host' and introduces a freeware remote control program to get started. Discusses the PC as a host; commercial products; the PC remote utility and how to use it; configuring the host and the caller and remote booting

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 2604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=2604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 2604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2604)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Defines client/server computer architecture and discusses it in the context of library automation. Addresses the following issues: is client/server needed?; the role of the Z39.50 standard; utilizing existing hardware and software; writing specifications; staff requirements; training; and ongoing support. Presents the responses of 30 library automation vendors in the USA to a questionnaire survey regarding present and future applications of client/server technology. Includes a bibliography of materials used in the preparation of the report

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Open System Interconnection (OSI) Standard 7498 appeared in 1984. Open systems of PCs and workstations decentralize information processing and divide it between several computers, based on the client-server concept. Relevant terminology is explained, including application protocol, bases of the SR/Z39.50 model, data transmission, search request services, query types, attribute sets, transmission format, transfer syntax, solution models and cooperation between library systems

0.006830811 = product of:
  0.034154054 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=3813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 3813, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3813)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) protocols support effective and interoperable intersystem search and retrieval. Although intersystem search methods have been envisioned and under development since the 1970s, it was the Z39.50 IR protocol, first released in 1988, that demonstrated real-world possibilities for such search and retrieval. As the networked information environment changed with the emergence of the World Wide Web, the need for standard IR protocols did not disappear, and one can argue the need is even more compelling given both the visible and invisible Web. A new protocol, based on the experience from Z39.50 but simpler and more comprehensible than Z39.50, is now being used for Web search and retrieval. Search and retrieve via URL (SRU) uses Web technologies and standards resulting in a Web friendly protocol that provides standard search access to existing Z39.50 resources and a wide-range of new non-catalog digital resources. This entry provides both an overview of the two protocols and technical details to understand both. A brief discussion of IR and communications protocols provides background to the specifics of these two IR protocols. Although communication protocols are by their nature technical specifications, this entry focuses on an overview of the functions and capabilities of the protocols. It uses technical concepts and terminology from the protocols to help explain how the protocols work but limits discussion of technical details.

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 1176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=1176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 1176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1176)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The ANSI Z39.50 standard was adopted 10 years ago. It outlines a set of rules and procedures to allow a computer system to search the databases provided by another system and to retrieve the results of that search. Traces its development adoption in library automation product lines. Recent major developments have been the migration to version 3 and the adoption of community profiles. Community profiles are documents that describe agreements that a community of interest develops to ensure clients and servers can interpret in specific ways. Describes the Government Information Locators Service, WAIS, ATS, ZDSR, Cataloguing, CEOS CIP, Digital Collection, Digital Library Objects and Museum Profiles

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 7706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=7706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 7706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7706)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In Sept. 1990, the US Dept. of Education's Library Technology and Cooperation Grants Program awarded a three-year grant to the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA), an agency of the Florida State University System, to develop software adhering to the ANSI Z39.50 Information Retrieval protocol standard. The Z39.50 software was to operate over the OSI communications protocols and be integrated with FCLA's NOTIS system, which is shared by all 9 state universities in Florida. In order to test the correctness of its Z39.50 software, FCLA sought out other library software developers who would be willing to develop Z39.50 systems of their own. As part of this process, FCLA helped to found the Z39.50 Implementor's Group (ZIG), which has since gone on to improve the standard and promote Z39.50 implementations throughout much of the North American library systems marketplace. Early on in the project, it became apparent that TCP/IP would be a more heavily used communication vehicle for Z39.50 messages than OSI. FCLA expanded its design to include TCP/IP and, by the end of the grant in Sept. 1993, will have a working Z39.50 system that can communicate over both OSI and TCP/IP networks