Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.06532348 = product of:
  0.13064696 = sum of:
    0.10898937 = weight(_text_:digital in 4299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10898937 = score(doc=4299,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.5512679 = fieldWeight in 4299, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4299)
    0.021657582 = weight(_text_:library in 4299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021657582 = score(doc=4299,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.16433616 = fieldWeight in 4299, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4299)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The emergence of digital libraries (DLs), at the interface of library and information science with computer and communication technologies, helped to expand significantly the literature in all of these areas during the late 1990s. The pace of development is reflected by the number of special issues of major journals in information science and computer science, and the increasing number of workshops and conferences an digital libraries. For example, starting in 1995, the Communications of the ACM has devoted three special issues to the topic (Fox, Akscyn, Furuta, & Leggett, 1995; Fox & Marchionini, 1998, 2001). The Journal of the American Society for Information Science devoted two issues to digital libraries (H. Chen, 2000; Fox & Lunin, 1993); Information Processing & Management and the Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation each had one special issue (Chen & Fox, 1996; Marchionini & Fox, 1999). The domain of digital libraries, though still evolving, has matured over the last decade, as demonstrated by coverage through D-Lib (http://www.dlib.org), the International Journal an Digital Libraries (http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00799), and two overview works (W Y Arms, 2000; Lesk, 1997; both of which have also served as textbooks). Sun Microsystems published a small book to guide those planning a digital library (Noerr, 2000), and IBM has been developing commercial products for digital libraries since 1994 (IBM, 2000). A number of Web sites have extensive sets of pointers to information an DLs (D-Lib Forum, 2001; Fox, 1998a; Habing, 1998; Hein, 2000; Schwartz, 2001a, 2001b). Further, the field has attracted the attention of diverse academics, research groups, and practitionersmany of whom have attended tutorials, workshops, or conferences, e.g., the Joint Conference an Digital Libraries, which is a sequel to a separate series run by ACM and IEEE-CS. Therefore, it is timely that ARIST publishes this first review focusing specifically an digital libraries. There has been no ARIST chapter to date directly dealing with the area of DLs, though some related domains have been covered-particularly: information retrieval, user interfaces (Marchionini & Komlodi, 1998), social informatics of DLs (Bishop & Star, 1996), and scholarly communication (see Borgman and Furner's chapter in this volume). This chapter provides an overview of the diverse aspects and dimensions of DL research, practice, and literature, identifying trends and delineating research directions.

0.03868373 = product of:
  0.07736746 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=6084,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 6084, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6084)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=6084,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6084, 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=6084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The challenge of cataloging Web sites and electronic resources was the most important issue facing the cataloging world in the last year. This article reviews attempts to analyze and revise the cataloging code in view of the new electronic environment. The difficulties of applying traditional library cataloging standards to Web resources has led some to favor metadata as the best means of providing access to these materials. The appropriate education and training for library cataloging personnel remains crucial during this transitional period. Articles on user understanding of Library of Congress subject headings and on cataloging practice are also reviewed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.1, S

0.035239115 = product of:
  0.07047823 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=249,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 52(2008) no.3, S.148-163

0.034465462 = product of:
  0.13786185 = sum of:
    0.13786185 = weight(_text_:digital in 5634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13786185 = score(doc=5634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.69730484 = fieldWeight in 5634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5634)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.030463453 = product of:
  0.12185381 = sum of:
    0.12185381 = weight(_text_:digital in 4275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12185381 = score(doc=4275,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.6163362 = fieldWeight in 4275, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4275)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The preservation of digital objects (defined here as objects in digital form that require a computer to support their existence and display) is obviously an important practical issue for the information professions, with its importance growing daily as more information objects are produced in, or converted to, digital form. Yakel's (2001) review of the field provided a much-needed introduction. At the same time, the complexity of new digital objects continues to increase, challenging existing preservation efforts (Lee, Skattery, Lu, Tang, & McCrary, 2002). The field of information science itself is beginning to pay some reflexive attention to the creation of fragile and unpreservable digital objects. But these concerns focus often an the practical problems of short-term repurposing of digital objects rather than actual preservation, by which I mean the activity of carrying digital objects from one software generation to another, undertaken for purposes beyond the original reasons for creating the objects. For preservation in this sense to be possible, information science as a discipline needs to be active in the formulation of, and advocacy for, national information policies. Such policies will need to challenge the predominant cultural expectation of planned obsolescence for information resources, and cultural artifacts in general.

0.028895756 = product of:
  0.057791512 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 47(2003) no.3, S.96-108

0.028895756 = product of:
  0.057791512 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 51(2007) no.1, S.51-68

0.02849595 = product of:
  0.1139838 = sum of:
    0.1139838 = weight(_text_:digital in 4274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1139838 = score(doc=4274,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.57652974 = fieldWeight in 4274, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4274)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Video is a communications medium that normally brings together moving pictures with a synchronized audio track into a discrete piece or pieces of information. A "piece" of video is variously referred to as a frame, a shot, a scene, a Clip, a program, or an episode; these pieces are distinguished by their length and by their composition. We shall return to the definition of each of these in the section an automatically structuring and indexing digital video. In modern society, Video is commonplace and is usually equated with television, movies, or home Video produced by a Video camera or camcorder. We also accept Video recorded from closed circuit TVs for security and surveillance as part of our daily lives. In short, Video is ubiquitous. Digital Video is, as the name suggests, the creation or capture of Video information in digital format. Most Video produced today, commercial, surveillance, or domestic, is produced in digital form, although the medium of Video predates the development of digital computing by several decades. The essential nature of Video has not changed with the advent of digital computing. It is still moving pictures and synchronized audio. However, the production methods and the end product have gone through significant evolution, in the last decade especially.

0.026429337 = product of:
  0.052858673 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2548,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2548, 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=2548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This review of 2004 and 2005 serials literature covers the themes of cost, management, and access. Interwoven through the serials literature of these two years are the importance of collaboration, communication, and linkages between scholars, publishers, subscription agents and other intermediaries, and librarians. The emphasis in the literature is on electronic serials and their impact on publishing, libraries, and vendors. In response to the crisis of escalating journal prices and libraries' dissatisfaction with the Big Deal licensing agreements, Open Access journals and publishing models were promoted. Libraries subscribed to or licensed increasing numbers of electronic serials. As a result, libraries sought ways to better manage licensing and subscription data (not handled by traditional integrated library systems) by implementing electronic resources management systems. In order to provide users with better, faster, and more current information on and access to electronic serials, libraries implemented tools and services to provide A-Z title lists, title by title coverage data, MARC records, and OpenURL link resolvers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 51(2007) no.4, S.293-304

0.022024449 = product of:
  0.044048898 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=1088,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 1088, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1088)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The topic of electronic journals (e-journals) dominated the serials literature from 2000 to 2003. This review is limited to the events and issues within the broad topics of cost, management, and archiving. Coverage of cost includes such initiatives as PEAK, JACC, BioMed Central, SPARC, open access, the "Big Deal," and "going e-only." Librarians combated the continued price increase trend for journals, fueled in part by publisher mergers, with the economies found with bundled packages and consortial subscriptions. Serials management topics include usage statistics; core title lists; staffing needs; the "A-Z list" and other services from such companies as Serials Solutions; "deep linking"; link resolvers such as SFX; development of standards or guidelines, such as COUNTER and ERMI; tracking of license terms; vendor mergers; and the demise of integrated library systems and a subscription agent's bankruptcy. Librarians archived print volumes in storage facilities due to space shortages. Librarians and publishers struggled with electronic archiving concepts, discussing questions of who, where, and how. Projects such as LOCKSS tested potential solutions, but missing online content due to the Tasini court case and retractions posed more archiving difficulties. The serials literature captured much of the upheaval resulting from the rapid pace of changes, many linked to the advent of e-journals.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.1, S.xx-xx

0.013581533 = product of:
  0.054326132 = sum of:
    0.054326132 = product of:
      0.108652264 = sum of:
        0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108652264 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, 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=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

0.013581533 = product of:
  0.054326132 = sum of:
    0.054326132 = product of:
      0.108652264 = sum of:
        0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108652264 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, 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=3962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

0.013581533 = product of:
  0.054326132 = sum of:
    0.054326132 = product of:
      0.108652264 = sum of:
        0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108652264 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, 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=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.013581533 = product of:
  0.054326132 = sum of:
    0.054326132 = product of:
      0.108652264 = sum of:
        0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108652264 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=4243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4243)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Inequities in information creation, production, distribution, and use are nothing new. Throughout human history some people have been more educated, better connected, more widely traveled, or more wellinformed than others. Until recently, relatively few have enjoyed the benefits of literacy, and even fewer could afford to own books. In the age of mass media, societies and social groups have varied dramatically in terms of their access to and uses of print, radio, television, film, telephone, and telegraph. What is new, however, is the growing attention being given to informational inequities in an increasingly information-driven global economy. Across disciplinary, national, and cultural boundaries, the widespread agreement is that the use of newer information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly the Internet, has accelerated the production, circulation, and consumption of information in every form. But also a growing sense has arisen that ICTs have helped to exacerbate existing differences in information access and use, and may even have fostered new types of barriers. As Hess and Ostrom (2001, p. 45) point out, "Distributed digital technologies have the dual capacity to increase as well as restrict access to information."

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4284)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is an area of research and application that explores how computers can be used to understand and manipulate natural language text or speech to do useful things. NLP researchers aim to gather knowledge an how human beings understand and use language so that appropriate tools and techniques can be developed to make computer systems understand and manipulate natural languages to perform desired tasks. The foundations of NLP lie in a number of disciplines, namely, computer and information sciences, linguistics, mathematics, electrical and electronic engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics, and psychology. Applications of NLP include a number of fields of study, such as machine translation, natural language text processing and summarization, user interfaces, multilingual and cross-language information retrieval (CLIR), speech recognition, artificial intelligence, and expert systems. One important application area that is relatively new and has not been covered in previous ARIST chapters an NLP relates to the proliferation of the World Wide Web and digital libraries.

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Why devote an ARIST chapter to scholarly communication and bibliometrics, and why now? Bibliometrics already is a frequently covered ARIST topic, with chapters such as that by White and McCain (1989) on bibliometrics generally, White and McCain (1997) on visualization of literatures, Wilson and Hood (2001) on informetric laws, and Tabah (2001) on literature dynamics. Similarly, scholarly communication has been addressed in other ARIST chapters such as Bishop and Star (1996) on social informatics and digital libraries, Schamber (1994) on relevance and information behavior, and many earlier chapters on information needs and uses. More than a decade ago, the first author addressed the intersection of scholarly communication and bibliometrics with a journal special issue and an edited book (Borgman, 1990; Borgman & Paisley, 1989), and she recently examined interim developments (Borgman, 2000a, 2000c). This review covers the decade (1990-2000) since the comprehensive 1990 volume, citing earlier works only when necessary to explain the foundation for recent developments.

0.012185382 = product of:
  0.048741527 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 4280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=4280,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 4280, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4280)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

What is an electronic record, how should it best be preserved and made available, and to what extent do traditional, paradigmatic archival precepts such as provenance, original order, and archival custody hold when managing it? Over more than four decades of work in the area of electronic records (formerly known as machine-readable records), theorists and researchers have offered answers to these questions-or at least devised approaches for trying to answer them. However, a set of fundamental questions about the nature of the record and the applicability of traditional archival theory still confronts researchers seeking to advance knowledge and development in this increasingly active, but contested, area of research. For example, which characteristics differentiate a record from other types of information objects (such as publications or raw research data)? Are these characteristics consistently present regardless of the medium of the record? Does the record always have to have a tangible form? How does the record manifest itself within different technological and procedural contexts, and in particular, how do we determine the parameters of electronic records created in relational, distributed, or dynamic environments that bear little resemblance an the surface to traditional paper-based environments? At the heart of electronic records research lies a dual concern with the nature of the record as a specific type of information object and the nature of legal and historical evidence in a digital world. Electronic records research is relevant to the agendas of many communities in addition to that of archivists. Its emphasis an accountability and an establishing trust in records, for example, addresses concerns that are central to both digital government and e-commerce. Research relating to electronic records is still relatively homogeneous in terms of scope, in that most major research initiatives have addressed various combinations of the following: theory building in terms of identifying the nature of the electronic record, developing alternative conceptual models, establishing the determinants of reliability and authenticity in active and preserved electronic records, identifying functional and metadata requirements for record keeping, developing and testing preservation

0.010464822 = product of:
  0.041859288 = sum of:
    0.041859288 = product of:
      0.083718576 = sum of:
        0.083718576 = weight(_text_:project in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083718576 = score(doc=3025,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.39571697 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper surveys knowledge management (KM) development using a literature review and classification of articles from 1995 to 2004 with a keyword index and article abstract in order to explore how KM performance evaluation has developed during this period. Based on the scope of 76 articles from 78 academic journals of KM, this paper surveys and classifies KM measurements using the following eight categories: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, financial indicator analysis, non-financial indicator analysis, internal performance analysis, external performance analysis, project-oriented analysis, and organizational-oriented analysis together with their measurement matrices for different research and problem domains. Discussion is presented, indicating the followings future development directions for KM performance evaluation: (1) KM performance evaluation is getting more important. (2) The quantitative analysis is the primary methodology in KM performance evaluation. (3) Firms are now highlighting the KM performance of competitors, through benchmarking or best practices, rather than internally auditing KM performance via balanced scorecard. (4) Firms may begin to focus more on project management measurement, than on the entire organization.

0.0075393203 = product of:
  0.030157281 = sum of:
    0.030157281 = weight(_text_:digital in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030157281 = score(doc=4270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.15253544 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Theory weary, theory leery, why can't I be theory cheery?" (Erickson, 2002, p. 269). The field of human-computer interaction (HCI) is rapidly expanding. Alongside the extensive technological developments that are taking place, a profusion of new theories, methods, and concerns has been imported into the field from a range of disciplines and contexts. An extensive critique of recent theoretical developments is presented here together with an overview of HCI practice. A consequence of bringing new theories into the field has been much insightful explication of HCI phenomena and also a broadening of the field's discourse. However, these theoretically based approaches have had limited impact an the practice of interaction design. This chapter discusses why this is so and suggests that different kinds of mechanisms are needed that will enable both designers and researchers to better articulate and theoretically ground the challenges facing them today. Human-computer interaction is bursting at the seams. Its mission, goals, and methods, well established in the '80s, have all greatly expanded to the point that "HCI is now effectively a boundless domain" (Barnard, May, Duke, & Duce, 2000, p. 221). Everything is in a state of flux: The theory driving research is changing, a flurry of new concepts is emerging, the domains and type of users being studied are diversifying, many of the ways of doing design are new, and much of what is being designed is significantly different. Although potentially much is to be gained from such rapid growth, the downside is an increasing lack of direction, structure, and coherence in the field. What was originally a bounded problem space with a clear focus and a small set of methods for designing computer systems that were easier and more efficient to use by a single user is now turning into a diffuse problem space with less clarity in terms of its objects of study, design foci, and investigative methods. Instead, aspirations of overcoming the Digital Divide, by providing universal accessibility, have become major concerns (e.g., Shneiderman, 2002a). The move toward greater openness in the field means that many more topics, areas, and approaches are now considered acceptable in the worlds of research and practice.