Search (81 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"OPAC"
  1. Whitney , C.; Schiff, L.: ¬The Melvyl Recommender Project : developing library recommendation services (2006) 0.12 
    0.117629126 = product of:
  0.15683883 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1173, 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=1173)
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=1173,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.059197973 = product of:
      0.11839595 = sum of:
        0.11839595 = weight(_text_:project in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11839595 = score(doc=1173,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5596283 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.
  2. Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation : Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane (2000) 0.07 
    0.06932508 = product of:
  0.092433445 = sum of:
    0.042648837 = weight(_text_:digital in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042648837 = score(doc=1429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21571769 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=1429,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
    0.011883841 = product of:
      0.023767682 = sum of:
        0.023767682 = weight(_text_:22 in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023767682 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Pauline Atherton Cochrane has been contributing to library and information science for fifty years. Think of it-from mid-century to the millennium, from ENIAC (practically) to Internet 11 (almost here). What a time to be in our field! Her work an indexing, subject access, and the user-oriented approach had immediate and sustained impact, and she continues to be one of our most heavily cited authors (see, JASIS, 49[4], 327-55) and most beloved personages. This introduction includes a few words about my own experiences with Pauline as well as a short summary of the contributions that make up this tribute. A review of the curriculum vita provided at the end of this publication Shows that Pauline Cochrane has been involved in a wide variety of work. As Marcia Bates points out in her note (See below), Pauline was (and is) a role model, but I will always think of her as simply the best teacher 1 ever had. In 1997, I entered the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science as a returning mid-life student; my previous doctorate had not led to a full-time job and I was re-tooling. I was not sure what 1 would find in library school, and the introductory course attended by more than 100 students from widely varied backgrounds had not yet convinced me I was in the right place. Then, one day, Pauline gave a guest lecture an the digital library in my introductory class. I still remember it. She put up some notes-a few words clustered an the blackboard with some circles and directional arrows-and then she gave a free, seemingly extemporaneous, but riveting narrative. She set out a vision for ideal information exchange in the digital environment but noted a host of practical concerns, issues, and potential problems that required (demanded!) continued human intervention. The lecture brought that class and the entire semester's work into focus; it created tremendous excitement for the future of librarianship. 1 saw that librarians and libraries would play an active role. I was in the right place.
    Content
    Enthält Beiträge von: FUGMANN, R.: Obstacles to progress in mechanized subject access and the necessity of a paradigm change; TELL, B.: On MARC and natural text searching: a review of Pauline Cochrane's inspirational thinking grafted onto a Swedish spy on library matters; KING, D.W.: Blazing new trails: in celebration of an audacious career; FIDEL, R.: The user-centered approach; SMITH, L.: Subject access in interdisciplinary research; DRABENSTOTT, K.M.: Web search strategies; LAM, V.-T.: Enhancing subject access to monographs in Online Public Access Catalogs: table of contents added to bibliographic records; JOHNSON, E.H.: Objects for distributed heterogeneous information retrieval
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 28(2001) no.2, S.97-100 (S. Betrand-Gastaldy); Information processing and management 37(2001) no.5, S.766-767 (H. Borko); JASIST 23(2002) no.1, S.58-60 (A.T.D. Petrou); Library and information science research 23(2001) S.200-202 (D.J. Karpuk)
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science
  3. Golderman, G.M.; Connolly, B.: Between the book covers : going beyond OPAC keyword searching with the deep linking capabilities of Google Scholar and Google Book Search (2004/05) 0.06 
    0.059401147 = product of:
  0.07920153 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.
    Date
    2.12.2007 19:39:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Profiles in digital information"
  4. Mann, T.: ¬The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools. Final report. March 17, 2006. Prepared for the Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun : A critical review (2006) 0.06 
    0.05644991 = product of:
  0.11289982 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=5012,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=5012,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgement or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model - and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.
  5. Poo, D.C.C.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Online Catalog Subject Searching (2009) 0.06 
    0.05644991 = product of:
  0.11289982 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=3851,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=3851,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) is an information retrieval system characterized by short bibliographic records, mainly of books, journals, and audiovisual materials available in a particular library. This, coupled with a Boolean search interface and a heterogeneous user population with diverse needs, presents special problems for subject searching by end users. To perform effective subject searching in the OPAC system requires a wide range of knowledge and skills. Various approaches to improving the OPAC design for subject searching have been proposed and are reviewed in this entry. The trend toward Web-based OPAC interfaces and the developments in Internet and digital library technologies present fresh opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of the OPAC system for subject searching.
    Content
    Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120008863. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  6. Hajdu Barát, A.: Usability and the user interfaces of classical information retrieval languages (2006) 0.06 
    0.05604878 = product of:
  0.11209756 = sum of:
    0.085297674 = weight(_text_:digital in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085297674 = score(doc=232,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.43143538 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper examines some traditional information searching methods and their role in Hungarian OPACs. What challenges are there in the digital and online environment? How do users work with them and do they give users satisfactory results? What kinds of techniques are users employing? In this paper I examine the user interfaces of UDC, thesauri, subject headings etc. in the Hungarian library. The key question of the paper is whether a universal system or local solutions is the best approach for searching in the digital environment.
  7. Powell, C.K.: OPAC integration in the era of mass digitization : the MBooks experience (2008) 0.06 
    0.05604878 = product of:
  0.11209756 = sum of:
    0.085297674 = weight(_text_:digital in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085297674 = score(doc=2541,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.43143538 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=2541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the OPAC integration in the University of Michigan's local implementation of materials digitized in the partnership with Google. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a discussion of different strategies used in integrating metadata with digital resources and presenting the digital objects to the user in the OPAC. Findings - The paper finds that methods that had served in smaller digitization projects require more automation and error reduction processes in an undertaking of this scale. Increased integration with the OPAC is one approach. Originality/value - Michigan is the first of the Google partners to mount their materials themselves and others involved in mass digitization may be interested in the experience.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 26(2008) no.1, S.24-32
  8. Blosser, J.; Michaelson, R.; Routh. R.; Xia, P.: Defining the landscape of Web resources : Concluding Report of the BAER Web Resources Sub-Group (2000) 0.06 
    0.05592901 = product of:
  0.07457201 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.026525015 = weight(_text_:library in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026525015 = score(doc=1447,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20126988 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.
    Date
    21. 4.2002 10:22:31
  9. Butterfield, K.: Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) (2009) 0.05 
    0.051531833 = product of:
  0.103063665 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=4694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4694, 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=4694)
    0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 4694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05136547 = score(doc=4694,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 4694, 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=4694)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In one form or another, from a mental list in the mind of the librarian, to book catalogs, card indexes, and online information retrieval systems, some type of meta access has existed to guide library users through library collections. Over the last 40 years, these constructs of paper and wood evolved into Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). When the catalog shifted out of drawers and off of three by five cards to become a networked, universally accessible entity, its role in the library shifted as well. The OPAC competes with the World Wide Web, metadata registries, search engines, and more sophisticated database structures for attention. Amongst this assortment of access mechanisms, the purpose of the OPAC has become muddled. The OPAC has now become one information source among many and one of a number of portals for accessing library collections and beyond.
    Content
    Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120045435. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  10. Calhoun, K.: ¬The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools : Prepared for the Library of Congress (2006) 0.05 
    0.049766533 = product of:
  0.099533066 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 5013, 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=5013)
    0.050791536 = weight(_text_:library in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050791536 = score(doc=5013,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38540247 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  11. Beccaria, M.; Scott, D.: Fac-Back-OPAC : an open source interface to your library system (2007) 0.04 
    0.04470687 = product of:
  0.08941374 = sum of:
    0.06564606 = weight(_text_:library in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06564606 = score(doc=2207,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4981175 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Fac-Back-OPAC is a faceted back­ up OPAC. This advanced catalog offers features that compare favorably with the traditional catalogs for today's library systems. Fac-Back-OPAC represents the convergence of two prominent trends in library tools: the decoupling of discovery tools from the traditional integrated library system and the use of readily available open source components to rapidly produce leading-edge technology for meeting patron and library needs. Built on code that was originally developed by Casey Durfee in February 2007, Fac-Back-OPAC is available for no cost under an open source license to any library that wants to offer an advanced search interface or a backup catalog for its patrons.
    Date
    17. 8.2008 11:22:47
  12. Hutchinson, H.B.; Druin, A.; Bederson, B.B.: Supporting elementary-age children's searching and browsing : design and evaluation using the international children's digital library (2007) 0.04 
    0.04399944 = product of:
  0.08799888 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=585)
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 585, 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=585)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Elementary-age children (ages 6-11) are among the largest user groups of computers and the Internet. Therefore, it is important to design searching and browsing tools that support them. However, many interfaces for children do not consider their skills and preferences. Children are capable of creating Boolean queries using category browsers, but have difficulty with the hierarchies used in many category-browsing interfaces because different branches of the hierarchy must be navigated sequentially and top-level categories are often too abstract for them to understand. Based on previous research, the authors believe using a flat category structure, where only leaf-level categories are available and can be viewed simultaneously, might better support children. However, this design introduces many more items on the screen and the need for paging or scrolling, all potential usability problems. To evaluate these tradeoffs, the authors conducted two studies with children searching and browsing using two types of category browsers in the International Children's Digital Library. Their results suggest that a flat, simultaneous interface provides advantages over a hierarchical, sequential interface for children in both Boolean searching and casual browsing. These results add to our understanding of children's searching and browsing skills and preferences, and possibly serve as guidelines for other children's interface designers.
  13. Markey, K.: ¬The online library catalog : paradise lost and paradise regained? (2007) 0.04 
    0.040147644 = product of:
  0.08029529 = sum of:
    0.030157281 = weight(_text_:digital in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030157281 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.15253544 = fieldWeight in 1172, 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=1172)
    0.050138008 = weight(_text_:library in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050138008 = score(doc=1172,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38044354 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
    The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.
  14. Moulaison, H.L.: OPAC queries at a medium-sized academic library : a transaction log analysis (2008) 0.04 
    0.03509323 = product of:
  0.07018646 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=3599,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 3599, 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=3599)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Patron queries at a four-year comprehensive college's online public access catalog were examined via transaction logs from March 2007. Three representative days were isolated for a more detailed examination of search characteristics. The results show that library users employed an average of one to three terms in a search, did not use Boolean operators, and made use of limits one-tenth of the time. Failed queries remained problematic, as a full one-third of searches resulted in zero hits. Implications and recommendations for improvements in the online public access catalog are discussed.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 52(2008) no.4, S.230-237
  15. De Rosa, C.; Cantrell, J.; Cellentani, D.; Hawk, J.; Jenkins, L.; Wilson, A.: Perceptions of libraries and information resources : A Report to the OCLC Membership (2005) 0.03 
    0.034693256 = product of:
  0.06938651 = sum of:
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=5018,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 5018, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5018)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=5018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 5018, 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=5018)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Summarizes findings of an international study on information-seeking habits and preferences: With extensive input from hundreds of librarians and OCLC staff, the OCLC Market Research team developed a project and commissioned Harris Interactive Inc. to survey a representative sample of information consumers. In June of 2005, we collected over 3,300 responses from information consumers in Australia, Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Perceptions report provides the findings and responses from the online survey in an effort to learn more about: * Library use * Awareness and use of library electronic resources * Free vs. for-fee information * The "Library" brand The findings indicate that information consumers view libraries as places to borrow print books, but they are unaware of the rich electronic content they can access through libraries. Even though information consumers make limited use of these resources, they continue to trust libraries as reliable sources of information.
  16. Lam, V.-T.: Enhancing subject access to monographs in Online Public Access Catalogs : table of contents added to bibliographic records (2000) 0.03 
    0.030079912 = product of:
  0.060159825 = sum of:
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=1187,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Subject access to monographs through online public access catalogs (OPACs) has always been a major concern for large research and/or academic libraries. Academic library practice of providing subject access to monographs has proven inadequate, especially in the case of composite works. Many techniques have been proposed to enhance subject treatment of monographs in OPACs. This article briefly reviews these efforts in the past and presents the case of adding Tables of Contents as one of the Most useful and probably also one of the Most costeffective ways of improving subject access to Monographs in an academic environment.
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science
    Source
    Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler
  17. Li, Y.-O.; Leung, S.W.: Computer cataloging of electronic Journals in unstable Aggregator Databases the Hong Kong Baptist University Library experience (2001) 0.03 
    0.030079912 = product of:
  0.060159825 = sum of:
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=164,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The growth and use of aggregator databases have presented libraries with both new opportunities for collection enhancement and new challenges of bibliographic control. How to integrate full-text electronic journal titles in unstable aggregator databases into a library's OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) has been an especially taxing matter for libraries. This article describes the Hong Kong Baptist University Library's effort to integrate full-text electronic journal titles from three large, unstable aggregator databases into its INNOPAC-based OPAC. The library's electronic journal computer program (EJCOP) does this in a simple, direct, consistent, and accurate manner and addresses some of the issues elaborated in the January 2000 Final Report of the Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases of the Standing Committee on Automation of the Library of Congress Program for Cooperative Cataloging.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.4, S.198-211
  18. Horn, M.E.: "Garbage" in, "refuse and refuse disposal" out : making the most of the subject authority file in the OPAC (2002) 0.03 
    0.025283787 = product of:
  0.050567575 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 46(2002) no.3, S.111-
  19. Beaulieu, M.; Gatford, M.; Jones, S.: Widening access to Okapi (2000) 0.02 
    0.02320939 = product of:
  0.09283756 = sum of:
    0.09283756 = weight(_text_:library in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09283756 = score(doc=3782,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.7044446 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Imprint
    London : British Library
    Series
    British Library: Library and Information Commission research report; 58
  20. Khoo, C.S.G.; Wan, K.-W.: ¬A simple relevancy-ranking strategy for an interface to Boolean OPACs (2004) 0.02 
    0.019341866 = product of:
  0.03868373 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=2509,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.011883841 = product of:
      0.023767682 = sum of:
        0.023767682 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023767682 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    "Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."
    Source
    Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

Authors

Languages

  • e 64
  • d 14
  • a 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 69
  • el 11
  • r 3
  • m 2
  • b 1
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes