Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.09787576 = product of:
  0.13050102 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=114,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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

Footnote

Vgl. auch: http://www.loc.gov/library/reports/CatalogingSpeech.pdf.

Source

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

0.040482227 = product of:
  0.08096445 = sum of:
    0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05136547 = score(doc=1086,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos

Content

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

Source

http://www.loc.gov/library/reports/CatalogingSpeech.pdf

0.017121824 = product of:
  0.068487294 = sum of:
    0.068487294 = weight(_text_:library in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068487294 = score(doc=1892,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.51967657 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 68) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=68,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 68, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=68)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der Begriff Bibliothek 2.0 (bzw. Library 2.0) lehnt sich an die Begrifflichkeit des Web 2.0 an. Beide Begriffe sind für die bibliothekarische Welt relativ neu und werden bisher hauptsächlich im angloamerikanischen Raum diskutiert. Einige Bereiche des "neuen" Webs werden auch in Deutschland von Bibliothekaren diskutiert, so beispielsweise Weblogs und die Wikipedia. Die Betrachtung sollte hier jedoch nicht enden, sondern vielmehr als Startpunkt dienen. Über den Begriff als solchen kann man sicherlich streiten, jedoch hat er sich als tauglich erwiesen, um bestimmte Veränderungen zu beschreiben. So schreibt Michael Stephens, der den Begriff entscheidend mitprägte, im ALA TechSource Weblog: "I am so pleased with the discussion - and no matter what name you use, I love that the innovations and plans just keep rolling on."

0.0038285558 = product of:
  0.015314223 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 3350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=3350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 3350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3350)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Der herkömmliche Katalog und die herkömmlichen bibliothekarischen Methoden der Erschließung des Bestandes und von Literatur reichen nicht mehr aus. Kommerzielle Anbieter treffen die Informationsbedürfnisse von Benutzern weit eher - sie bieten zum einen weniger (bibliografische Angaben) und zum anderen mehr (Informationen zum Buch und zu ähnlichen Büchern). Für viele Theoretiker und Praktiker geht es darum, die Daten frei(er) zu lassen und sie angepasster, anpassbarer zu machen, so weit möglich. Wenn die Daten gefangen sind, kann man sie befreien, wie dies sogar bei proprietären Systemen zu schaffen ist, hat kürzlich Tim Spalding mit seinem Aufsatz »Breaking into the OPAC« im Buch »Library Mashups« (Nicole C. Engard; London: Facet, 2009; Seite 129-143) gezeigt. Aufwendig zwar, aber durchaus im Bereich des Möglichen! Letztlich aber handelt es sich als Leitfrage stets darum, den Bedürfnissen der Benutzer zu entsprechen, die Handhabung selbsterklärender, die Information reicher, die Weiterführung der Recherche mit anderen Mitteln einfacher zu machen. Sagen wir: Die Zukunft ist da, aber sie ist nur bedingt RAK-kompatibel ..."