Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.045742862 = product of:
  0.091485724 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 309, 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=309)
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=309,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 309, 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=309)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.

Source

Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

0.044985935 = product of:
  0.08997187 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 5148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=5148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 5148, 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=5148)
    0.046890046 = weight(_text_:library in 5148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046890046 = score(doc=5148,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.35579824 = fieldWeight in 5148, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5148)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Documents in digital and paper libraries may be arranged, based on their topics, in order to facilitate browsing. It may seem intuitively obvious that ordering documents by their subject should improve browsing performance; the results presented in this article suggest that ordering library materials by their Gray code values and through using links consistent with the small world model of document relationships is consistent with improving browsing performance. Below, library circulation data, including ordering with Library of Congress Classification numbers and Library of Congress Subject Headings, are used to provide information useful in generating user-centered document arrangements, as well as user-independent arrangements. Documents may be linearly arranged so they can be placed in a line by topic, such as on a library shelf, or in a list on a computer display. Crossover links, jumps between a document and another document to which it is not adjacent, can be used in library databases to allow additional paths that one might take when browsing. The improvement that is obtained with different combinations of document orderings and different crossovers is examined and applications suggested.

0.042628497 = product of:
  0.085256994 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=1339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 1339, 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=1339)
    0.050791536 = weight(_text_:library in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050791536 = score(doc=1339,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38540247 = fieldWeight in 1339, 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=1339)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Will there be a library catalogue in the future and, if so, what will it look like? In the last 25 years, the library catalogue has undergone an evolution, from card catalogues to OPACs, discovery systems and even linked data applications making library bibliographic data accessible on the web. At the same time, users expectations of what catalogues will be able to offer in the way of discovery have never been higher. This groundbreaking edited collection brings together some of the foremost international cataloguing practitioners and thought leaders, including Lorcan Dempsey, Emmanuelle Bermès, Marshall Breeding and Karen Calhoun, to provide an overview of the current state of the art of the library catalogue and look ahead to see what the library catalogue might become. Practical projects and cutting edge concepts are showcased in discussions of linked data and the Semantic Web, user expectations and needs, bibliographic control, the FRBRization of the catalogue, innovations in search and retrieval, next-generation discovery products and mobile catalogues.

Content

Foreword - Marshall Breeding Introduction - Sally Chambers 1. Next generation catalogues: what do users think? - Anne Christensen 2. Making search work for the library user - Till Kinstler 3. Next-generation discovery: an overview of the European Scene - Marshall Breeding 4. The mobile library catalogue - Lukas Koster and Driek Heesakkers 5. FRBRizing your catalogue - Rosemie Callewaert 6. Enabling your catalogue for the semantic web - Emmanuelle Bermes 7. Supporting digital scholarship: bibliographic control, library co-operatives and open access repositories - Karen Calhoun 8. Thirteen ways of look at the libraries, discovery and the catalogue: scale, workflow, attention - Lorcan Dempsey.

LCSH

Online library catalogs / Web 2.0 / Semantic Web

Subject

Online library catalogs / Web 2.0 / Semantic Web

0.034354553 = product of:
  0.068709105 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 1799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=1799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 1799, 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=1799)
    0.034243647 = weight(_text_:library in 1799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034243647 = score(doc=1799,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25983828 = fieldWeight in 1799, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1799)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Inhalt: Introduction -- Focusing on user needs :new ways of subject access in Czechia -- Subject analysis and indexing :an "Italian version" of the analytico-synthetic model -- Subject search in Italian OPACs :an opportunity in waiting? -- Semiautomatic merging of two universal thesauri :the case of Estonia -- 20 years SWD :German subject authority data prepared for the future -- Mixed translations of the DDC :design, usability, and implications for knowledge organization in multilingual environments -- Animals belonging to the emperor :enabling viewpoint warrant in classification -- Dewey in Sweden :leaving SAB after 87 years -- Enhancing information services using machine-to-machine terminology services -- Social bookmarking and subject indexing -- Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library -- The Nuovo Soggettario Thesaurus :structural features and web application projects -- Jzyk Hasel Przedmiotowych Biblioteki Narodowej (National Library of Poland Subject Headings) :from card catalogs to Digital Library :some questions about the future of a Local Subject Heading Systems in the changing world of information retrieval -- FAST headings as tags for WorldCat

LCSH

Online library catalogs / Subject access / Congresses

Subject

Online library catalogs / Subject access / Congresses

0.028911047 = product of:
  0.057822093 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=1801,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=1801,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Subject access to bibliographic data supported by knowledge organization systems, such as subject headings and classification, plays an important role in ensuring the quality of library catalogues. It is generally acknowledged that users have a strong affinity to subject browsing and searching and are inclined tofollow meaningful links between resources. Research studies, however, show that library OPACs are not designed to support or make good use of subject indexes and their underlying semantic structure. A project entitled OPAC semantici was initiated in 2003 by a number of Italian subject specialists and the Italian "Research Group on Subject Indexing" (GRIS) with a goal to analyse and evaluate subject access in Italian library catalogues through a survey of 150 OPACs. Applying the same methodology, a follow-up survey to assess whether any improvement had taken place was conducted five years later, in spring 2008. Analysis of these two surveys indicated that there was a slight improvement. The authors discuss the results of these two surveys, analyse the problems in subject searching in OPACs and explain the recommendations for subject searching enhancement put forward by GRIS. Using the example of Italian OPACs, the authors will attempt to outline some requirements for a subject searching interface and explain how this can be achieved through authority control.

0.026429337 = product of:
  0.052858673 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2611,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Enhancing content description of specialized resources, particularly astronomical resources, is a matter that is still unresolved in library and information science. In this paper, the authors outline deficiencies in some fields and elements of cataloging standards for description of historical astronomical resources, mainly star atlases and catalogs. Furthermore, they review their recent proposal of astronomical parameters for a better description and propose an approach for accommodating these parameters in the current criteria of MARC 21, the International Standard Bibliographic Description, and Resource Description and Access. Fourteen new parameters are considered, and recommendations are provided to standards developers for the addition of elements to accommodate attributes of celestial cartographic resources. This would improve bibliographic records for such resources in astronomical libraries' OPACs, which will have a beneficial effect on information retrieval.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 59(2015) no.4, S.140-161

0.021671817 = product of:
  0.043343633 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 1709, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1709)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Methoden und Techniken der Informationsvisualisierung werden seit ungefähr zwanzig Jahren im Bereich der Informationssuche eingesetzt. In dieser Literaturstudie werden ausgewählte Visualisierungsanwendungen der letzten Jahre vorgestellt. Sie betreffen zum einen den Retrievalprozess, das Boolesche Retrieval, die facettierte Suche, Dokumentbeziehungen, die Zufallssuche und Ergebnisanzeige, zum anderen spezielle Anwendungen wie die kartenbasierte und adaptive Visualisierung, Zitationsnetzwerke und Wissensordnungen. Die Einsatzszenarien für Applikationen der Informationsvisualisierung sind vielfältig. Sie reichen von mobilen kleinformatigen Anwendungen bis zu großformatigen Darstellungen auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen, von integrativen Arbeitsplätzen für den einzelnen Nutzer bis zur Nutzung interaktiver Oberflächen für das kollaborative Retrieval. Das Konzept der Blended Library wird vorgestellt. Die Übertragbarkeit von Visualisierungsanwendungen auf Bibliothekskataloge wird im Hinblick auf die Nutzung des Kataloginputs und des Angebots an Sucheinstiegen geprüft. Perspektivische Überlegungen zu zukünftigen Entwicklungsschritten von Bibliothekskatalogen sowie zum Einfluss von Visualisierungsanwendungen auf die Informationspraxis werden angestellt.

Date

4. 2.2015 9:22:39

0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 3140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=3140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 3140, 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=3140)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die 40 im i.d.a.-Dachverband zusammengeschlossenen Bibliotheken, Archive und Dokumentations-stellen in Deutschland, Österreich, Luxemburg, Italien und der Schweiz verfügen über einzigartige Archivbestände zu Aktivistinnen und Organisationen aus den verschiedenen Phasen und Richtungen der Frauenbewegung des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Darüber hinaus stellen sie umfassende Literatur zu Frauenbewegungen, Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung, lesbischer und queerer Theorie und Belletristik bereit. Im Zuge des vom BMFSJ finanzierten META-Projekts wurde in drei Jahren der META-Katalog geschaffen, der den Großteil der digital verfügbaren Metadaten aus den verschiedenen Einrichtungen nachweist. Trotz der unterschiedlichen Ausgangslagen der Einrichtungen (Einrichtungstypus, Sammlungsschwerpunkt, technische Ausstattung) ist es gelungen ein Nachweisinstrument zu schaffen, dass den Nutzenden ein homogenes Nutzungserlebnis ermöglicht.

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=1878,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 1878, 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=1878)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Reshaping the Library Catalog: Selected Papers from the International Conference FSR2014 (Rome, February 27-28, 2014).

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3571, 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=3571)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Lesesaal: Information digital

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3102, 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=3102)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 15th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems Workshop (NKOS 2016) co-located with the 20th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2016 (TPDL 2016), Hannover, Germany, September 9, 2016. Edi. by Philipp Mayr et al. [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/=urn:nbn:de:0074-1676-5]

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=2016,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 2016, 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=2016)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=5568,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 5568, 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=5568)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As of spring semester 2010, Georgia Southern University began using a VuFind implementation as the default access to the library catalogue on the library Web page while maintaining a secondary link to the traditional Voyager "classic" catalogue. VuFind is an open-source product that has been adopted and adapted by all the state universities and colleges in the state of Georgia. For approximately ten years, Georgia libraries have used Voyager as their catalogue, and it remains available to users as the "classic" search option. This report examines the local VuFind implementation compared to the more traditional Voyager implementation, emphasizing the differences in the searching capabilities of each.

Source

Library trends. 61(2012) no.1, S.208-217

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=1879,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Reshaping the Library Catalog: Selected Papers from the International Conference FSR2014 (Rome, February 27-28, 2014).

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=5128,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The article is a researcher's eye view of the value of the library catalog not only as a database to be searched for surrogates of objects of study, but as a corpus of text that can be analyzed in its own right, or incorporated within the researcher's own research database. Barriers are identified in the ways in which catalog data can be output and the technical skills researchers currently need to download, ingest, and manipulate data. Research tools and datasets created by, or in collaboration with, the library community are identified.

0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=4541,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to highlight limits to the dominant model of social inclusion under which UK public libraries operate, to analyse how and to what extent processes of socio-cultural exclusion emerge in the subject representation and discoverability of "non-dominant" resources in public library OPACs, and to consider folksonomy as a solution to any issues raised. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first develops a critique of the dominant model of "inclusion" within UK public libraries, drawing on feminist and critical theories of identity. It then considers how this critique overlaps with and offers fresh insights into major debates within subject indexing, and develops a theoretical rationale for considering the potential of folksonomy to intervene in more inclusive subject-indexing design. A user-based critical interpretive methodology which understands OPACs as texts open to multiple interpretations is developed, and a comparative reading of standard OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy is undertaken to evaluate the discoverability and subject representation of LGBTQ and ethnic minority resources. Findings - LibraryThing folksonomy offers benefits over LCSH subject indexing in the discoverability and representation of LGBTQ resources. However, the folksonomy is dominated by US taggers, and this impacts on the tagging of ethnic minority resources. Folksonomy, like traditional indexing, is found to contain its own biases in worldview and subject representation. Originality/value - The importance of subject indexing in developing inclusive library services is highlighted and a new method for evaluating OPACs is developed.

0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=87,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the summer of 2008 all University of North Carolina libraries switched from a traditional library catalog interface supporting text-based searching (TextOnly) to a text and facet-based interface (TextFacet) to improve users' search experiences. This study seeks to understand the differences between these two interfaces and how they affect the search experience of the novice user. In this study, 40 participants were asked to search for resources using both interfaces. Their search times and accuracy were measured across three types of search tasks (known, partially known, and exploratory). After completing the searches, they were asked a series of questions about their experiences. The data were analyzed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in both search interfaces. Thirty-six out of 40 participants preferred the TextFacet interface to the TextOnly interface. Using three dependent variables-time, accuracy, and rating-the two interfaces were compared and interactions were tested with the three task types. Search times for the TextFacet were shorter and participants preferred the TextFacet search interface over the TextOnly search interface. Performances across the three task types were different in terms of search time. The partially known and exploratory task types showed similar distributions for rating and accuracy. These distributions were distinctly different from the known task type. The results of this study may assist libraries in developing improved library catalog search interfaces that utilize facets as well as text searching.

0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=4379,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While support for subject searching has been traditionally advocated for in library catalogs, often in the form of a catalog objective to find everything that a library has on a certain topic, research has shown that subject access has not been satisfactory. Many existing online catalogs and discovery services do not seem to make good use of the intellectual effort invested into assigning controlled subject index terms and classes. For example, few support hierarchical browsing of classification schemes and other controlled vocabularies with hierarchical structures, few provide end-user-friendly options to choose a more specific concept to increase precision, a broader concept or related concepts to increase recall, to disambiguate homonyms, or to find which term is best used to name a concept. Optimum subject access in library catalogs and discovery services is analyzed from the perspective of earlier research as well as contemporary conceptual models and cataloguing codes. Eighteen proposed features of what this should entail in practice are drawn. In an exploratory qualitative study, the three most common discovery services used in Swedish academic libraries are analyzed against these features. In line with previous research, subject access in contemporary interfaces is demonstrated to less than optimal. This is in spite of the fact that individual collections have been indexed with controlled vocabularies and a significant number of controlled vocabularies have been mapped to each other and are available in interoperable standards. Strategic action is proposed to build research-informed (inter)national standards and guidelines.

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=2987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2987, 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=2987)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since around 2005 several striking attempts have been made to rethink the design of library catalogs in production systems; the North Carolina State University's (NCSU) Endeca catalog being a notable example. These developments are taking place just as the continued relevance of traditional cataloging is being questioned. This article examines the relationship of these new designs to evolving cataloging practice and the changing discovery environment.

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 195, 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=195)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)