Search (70 results, page 1 of 4)

0.06542753 = product of:
  0.13085505 = sum of:
    0.13085505 = product of:
      0.2617101 = sum of:
        0.2617101 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2617101 = score(doc=5569,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.9813483 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To improve resource discovery and retrieval, libraries have implemented new discovery services, such as next generation catalogues, federated search, and Web-scale discovery, in addition to their traditional integrated library systems. These new discovery services greatly improve the user experience by utilizing existing cataloguing records housed within the library system or in combination with metadata from other sources, both in and outside of libraries. However, to maximize the functionality of these discovery services, libraries must reexamine current cataloguing practices and the way libraries control the bibliographic description to better serve the user's needs. This report discusses how new discovery services use the cataloguing records and the challenges that libraries encounter in bibliographic control to work with new discovery services, including the quality of cataloguing records, granular levels of bibliographic description, and integration of user-generated metadata into the cataloguing records. Each of these aspects requires further discussion.

0.054522943 = product of:
  0.109045886 = sum of:
    0.109045886 = product of:
      0.21809177 = sum of:
        0.21809177 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21809177 = score(doc=2577,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.81779027 = fieldWeight in 2577, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2577)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Beitrag liefert eine kurze Übersicht zur Entstehung und zu den wesentlichen Eigenschaften von Discovery-Services. Die im deutschen Markt vertretenen Anbieter werden vorgestellt und hinsichtlich einiger wichtiger Unterscheidungsmerkmale verglichen. Abschließend werden zwei Trends für die mittelfristige Entwicklung beleuchtet.

0.053974956 = product of:
  0.10794991 = sum of:
    0.10794991 = product of:
      0.21589983 = sum of:
        0.21589983 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21589983 = score(doc=2576,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.809571 = fieldWeight in 2576, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die HeBIS-Verbundzentrale bietet das HeBIS Discovery System (HDS) als Dienstleistung für interessierte Mitgliedsbibliotheken an. Der Service beinhaltet eine Rechercheoberfläche mit Suchunterstützung durch eine moderne Suchmaschine, Erweiterung des Suchraums mit Inhalten aus Datenbanken und Volltexten durch einen Resource Discovery Service und alle gewohnten Funktionen eines lokalen OPACs. Technisch besteht HDS aus dem Open-Source-OPAC VuFind, der Suchmaschine Solr, dem Discovery-Service EDS und dem ReDi-Linkresolver. Dieser Beitrag geht auf die Projektstruktur und die Erfahrungen bei der kooperativen Entwicklung ein.

0.053974956 = product of:
  0.10794991 = sum of:
    0.10794991 = product of:
      0.21589983 = sum of:
        0.21589983 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21589983 = score(doc=5573,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.809571 = fieldWeight in 5573, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although academic libraries are increasingly converting stacks into collaborative spaces and physical books and journals are being replaced by their electronic counterparts, the concept of browsing as a means of discovery is seeing a resurgence in the world of search and discovery. While many users start their online research with electronic databases and library catalogues, interviews with North Carolina State University Libraries patrons provide evidence that physically browsing the shelves to find similar materials is still common. A growing awareness of the need to preserve this type of serendipitous discovery as a complement to keyword searching is inspiring the development of online virtual browsing tools that replace and enhance physical access to library stacks.

0.053421356 = product of:
  0.10684271 = sum of:
    0.10684271 = product of:
      0.21368542 = sum of:
        0.21368542 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21368542 = score(doc=2115,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.80126756 = fieldWeight in 2115, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wir beschreiben den Prototypen einer Webanwendung, die zwei unterschiedliche Discovery-Dienste und einen OPAC-basierten Suchmaschinenindex integriert. Zunächst skizzieren wir die technische Architektur, geben dann einen Überblick über die Metadaten und APIs der eingesetzten Discovery-Dienste und berichten im Anschluss von den Nutzererfahrungen, die wir aus dem Feedback der Testpersonen gewonnen haben. Zuletzt geben wir einen Überblick über die Ergebnisse unseres Tests und umreißen die Richtung, in die wir unsere Entwicklung fortführen wollen.

0.053421356 = product of:
  0.10684271 = sum of:
    0.10684271 = product of:
      0.21368542 = sum of:
        0.21368542 = weight(_text_:discovery in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21368542 = score(doc=552,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.80126756 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Beitrag analysiert die Entstehungsgeschichte von bibliothekarischen Discovery-Systemen in Wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken, mit einem Fokus auf Bibliotheken in Deutschland. Hierfür dient der Hype-Zyklus als Rahmen, um vor allem auch auf die Erwartungen und Rezeption der Systeme in bibliothekarischen Kreisen einzugehen und diese zu diskutieren. Der Beitrag liefert außerdem einen Ausblick auf künftige Potenziale von Discovery-Systemen, auch im Kontext von forschungsnahen Dienstleistungen.

0.051725004 = product of:
  0.10345001 = sum of:
    0.10345001 = product of:
      0.20690002 = sum of:
        0.20690002 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20690002 = score(doc=5582,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.77582395 = fieldWeight in 5582, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

If the public library catalogue is to continue to have relevance to its users, it needs to move beyond its current inventory model, where all content is designed and controlled by library staff and client interaction with catalogue content is limited, to a social catalogue, where users can contribute to, and interact with information and with each other. The goal of this report is to present the results of an analysis of four months worth of log analysis of two social discovery systems used in two Canadian public libraries to examine: (a) how public library users interact with social discovery systems; (b) how usage compares between the two social discovery systems; and (c) whether the use of the features in social discovery systems is consistent over time. Results suggest that clients are making limited use of the social features of the system that allow them to interact with the catalogue records and with one another.

0.046743687 = product of:
  0.093487374 = sum of:
    0.093487374 = product of:
      0.18697475 = sum of:
        0.18697475 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18697475 = score(doc=2561,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.7011091 = fieldWeight in 2561, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im digitalen Zeitalter erschöpft sich das Aufgabenspektrum der Archive, Bibliotheken und Museen längst nicht mehr in der Sammlung, Erschließung, Bewahrung und Zugänglichmachung physischer Sammlungsbestände. Es bezieht die Digitalisierung ebenso mit ein wie die Zusammenführung der Digitalisate in übergreifenden Internetportalen. Der folgende Beitrag bietet einen Überblick zum Einsatz der Open-Source-Software VuFind, welche als Discovery-Tool für digitalisierte Kulturgüter vorgestellt wird. Erläutert werden nicht nur die Anforderungen, die sich für die Erschließung und das Metadatenmanagement ergeben, sondern auch die Chancen einer engeren Kooperation von Archiven, Bibliotheken und Museen im digitalen Zeitalter. Abgerundet wird der Beitrag um Ausführungen zum Portal digitales thüringen, welches die Anwendung VuFind-basierter Discovery-Technologie im Kontext der Digitalisierung von Kulturgut beispielhaft illustriert.

0.04626425 = product of:
  0.0925285 = sum of:
    0.0925285 = product of:
      0.185057 = sum of:
        0.185057 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.185057 = score(doc=2150,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.69391805 = fieldWeight in 2150, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seit Einführung der neuen Discovery-Kataloge stehen unseren Nutzerinnen und Nutzern zusätzlich Millionen von Dokumenten neben dem lokalen Buchbestand zur Verfügung. Diese Zielgruppe muss in die Lage versetzt werden, die für sie relevanten Titel einfach und sicher zu finden. Die Qualität von Empfehlungsfunktionen und besonders der Relevanz-Ranking-Methoden sind daher für den Erfolg eines Discovery-Systems besonders wichtig. Das Ranking bibliothekarischer Suchmaschinentechnik ignoriert bisher das Feedback durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. Die Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen (SuUB) setzt mit dem in Bremen entwickelten Discovery-System "E-LIB" seit Sommer 2011 zusätzlich auf eine Modifikation des Treffer-Rankings über Popularitätsfaktoren der Medien wie Klickstatistik, Auflagen- und Exemplarzahl. Die maßgeschneiderte Entwicklung eines eigenen Bibliothekskataloges, den die SuUB seit 2004 mit dem Discovery-System "E-LIB" in Bremen betreibt, erlaubt die schnelle und flexible Anpassung von Retrievalfunktionen an die Bedürfnisse der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer vor Ort.

0.040066015 = product of:
  0.08013203 = sum of:
    0.08013203 = product of:
      0.16026406 = sum of:
        0.16026406 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16026406 = score(doc=5744,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.60095066 = fieldWeight in 5744, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5744)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ziel: Ziel dieser Bachelorarbeit war es, die Übertragbarkeit der allgemeinen Rankingfaktoren, wie sie von Web-Suchmaschinen verwendet werden, auf Discovery-Systeme zu analysieren. Dadurch könnte das bisher hauptsächlich auf dem textuellen Abgleich zwischen Suchanfrage und Dokumenten basierende bibliothekarische Ranking verbessert werden. Methode: Hierfür wurden Faktoren aus den Gruppen Popularität, Aktualität, Lokalität, Technische Faktoren, sowie dem personalisierten Ranking diskutiert. Die entsprechenden Rankingfaktoren wurden nach ihrer Vorkommenshäufigkeit in der analysierten Literatur und der daraus abgeleiteten Wichtigkeit, ausgewählt. Ergebnis: Von den 23 untersuchten Rankingfaktoren sind 14 (61 %) direkt vom Ranking der Web-Suchmaschinen auf das Ranking der Discovery-Systeme übertragbar. Zu diesen zählen unter anderem das Klickverhalten, das Erstellungsdatum, der Nutzerstandort, sowie die Sprache. Sechs (26%) der untersuchten Faktoren sind dagegen nicht übertragbar (z.B. Aktualisierungsfrequenz und Ladegeschwindigkeit). Die Linktopologie, die Nutzungshäufigkeit, sowie die Aktualisierungsfrequenz sind mit entsprechenden Modifikationen übertragbar.

0.038553543 = product of:
  0.07710709 = sum of:
    0.07710709 = product of:
      0.15421417 = sum of:
        0.15421417 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15421417 = score(doc=5562,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.5782651 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This case study demonstrates how competitive usability testing informs the selection and purchase of a next-generation catalogue (NGC) or Web-scale discovery system (WSDS) to enhance a current library catalogue. Using competitive usability techniques, the authors explain how different NGCs and WSDSs solve issues that catalogue users may face when searching for materials in the online catalogue. The goal of this study is to provide a framework that identifies concrete evidence in support of purchase recommendations for an effective system that adequately addresses locally identified issues with catalogue searches. The process of selecting live system implementations from peer institutions is outlined. Steps include surveying library staff about their current library catalogue. Survey results and documented reference questions provided the foundation for user tasks created by testers for use in this study. This multifaceted research design resulted in a case study that captures current issues that users encounter in the discovery and access to library materials and shows how to include competitive usability techniques as part of a purchase rationale while assessing how well a variety of next-generation discovery and access systems address users' issues.

0.03816606 = product of:
  0.07633212 = sum of:
    0.07633212 = product of:
      0.15266424 = sum of:
        0.15266424 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15266424 = score(doc=2993,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.5724532 = fieldWeight in 2993, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There has been a flurry of constructive discussion and debate about the future of cataloging and the catalog, from FRBR and RDA on cataloging rules (with a focus on content) to next-generation discovery interfaces for the catalog (with a focus on carrier). A topic that is not receiving as much attention in the midst of these discussions is the scope of the library catalog. This article offers an opinion on the scope of the catalog in a research library, and the role of the catalogers in this time of transition. The article will also elicit some practical approaches that catalogers can take to reposition the catalog for improved user-access and resource discovery.

0.033388346 = product of:
  0.06677669 = sum of:
    0.06677669 = product of:
      0.13355339 = sum of:
        0.13355339 = weight(_text_:discovery in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13355339 = score(doc=6107,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.5007922 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is currently a lively debate about the role of the library catalogue and its relationship to other resource discovery tools. An example of this debate is the recent publication of a report commissioned by the Library of Congress on "the changing nature of the catalogue" As part of this debate, the role of union catalogues is also being re-examined. Some commentators have suggested that union catalogues, by virtue of their size, can aggregate both supply and demand, thus increasing the chance that a relatively little-used resource will be discovered by somebody for whom it is relevant. During the past year, the National Library of Australia (NLA) has been considering the future of its catalogue and its role in the resource discovery and delivery process. The review was prompted, in part, by the redevelopment of the Australian union catalogue and its exposure on the web as a free public service, badged as Libraries Australia. The NLA examined the enablers and inhibitors to proposition "that it replace its catalogue with Libraries Australia, as the primary database to be searched by users". Flowing from this review, the NLA is aiming to undertake a number of tasks to move in the medium to long term towards a scenario in which it could deprecate its local catalogue. Bezug zum Calhoun-Report

0.032713763 = product of:
  0.06542753 = sum of:
    0.06542753 = product of:
      0.13085505 = sum of:
        0.13085505 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13085505 = score(doc=5012,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.49067414 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Stellungnahme zu: Calhoun, K.: The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools.

0.032713763 = product of:
  0.06542753 = sum of:
    0.06542753 = product of:
      0.13085505 = sum of:
        0.13085505 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13085505 = score(doc=5560,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.49067414 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogues can be viewed as the latest manifestation of a tendency in library catalogue history to strive for centralization of access to collections-a single portal for the discovery of library resources. Due to an increasing volume of published materials and the explosion of online information resources during the Internet age, the library does not currently provide centralized access to its various information silos, nor does it provide a user-friendly search and retrieval experience for users whose expectations are shaped by Google and other major commercial Web sites. Searching across library resources is a complicated task, bearing high-attention "transaction costs" for the user, which discourage the use of library resources. Libraries need access systems that minimize complexity, easing discovery and delivery of resources for user populations. Here, the authors review past efforts of centralization of access, consider the potential of next-generation catalogues in the context of this historical tendency toward centralization of access, and describe what goals underlie that centralization.

0.030842833 = product of:
  0.061685666 = sum of:
    0.061685666 = product of:
      0.12337133 = sum of:
        0.12337133 = weight(_text_:discovery in 2575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12337133 = score(doc=2575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.46261203 = fieldWeight in 2575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dieser Artikel beschreibt zunächst die Erfahrungen der Universität Konstanz mit Summon als Discovery-Service. Summon wurde im Jahr 2011 als "KonSearch - die Literatursuchmaschine der Universität Konstanz" eingeführt. Seitdem stiegen die Nutzung und die Akzeptanz dauerhaft an. Im gleichen Jahr wurde an der Universität Konstanz das Projekt Blended Library gestartet. Innerhalb dieses Projekts wurden mehrere Ideen zur Verbindung von gedrucktem und digitalem Bestand und dem Ort Bibliothek entwickelt. Dies führte zum sogenannten Hybrid Bookshelf, das derzeit entwickelt wird.

0.027614072 = product of:
  0.055228144 = sum of:
    0.055228144 = product of:
      0.11045629 = sum of:
        0.11045629 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11045629 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.027614072 = product of:
  0.055228144 = sum of:
    0.055228144 = product of:
      0.11045629 = sum of:
        0.11045629 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11045629 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17843105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.027261471 = product of:
  0.054522943 = sum of:
    0.054522943 = product of:
      0.109045886 = sum of:
        0.109045886 = weight(_text_:discovery in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109045886 = score(doc=1831,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.40889513 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Fazit: Die Sacherschliessung im Bibliothekskontext richtet sich nach dem Angebot und dem Zugang, den die Bibliothek bietet. Ein Regelwerk muss so gestaltet sein, dass die Bibliothek die Erschliessungstiefe selbst bestimmen kann. Im Datenaustausch macht dann die Übernahme von Fremddaten nur unter ähnlichen Bibliotheken Sinn. Metakataloge können keine sinnvollen Facetten anbieten, hier muss ein Relevanz-Ranking genügen. Dasselbe gilt für die Discovery Tools, in denen Quellen mit verschiedenen Erschliessungssystemen unter einer Oberfläche suchbar gemacht werden. In Kombination mit den Daten der Formalerschliessung sollen hingegen auch bei den Discovery Tools Filter so gestaltet sein, dass in spezifischen Beständen, die intellektuell sachlich erschlossen sind, ein Index der Schlagwörter als Themenfacetten angezeigt und genutzt werden kann. Die RDA wird dafür den Rahmen geben müssen."

0.027261471 = product of:
  0.054522943 = sum of:
    0.054522943 = product of:
      0.109045886 = sum of:
        0.109045886 = weight(_text_:discovery in 5571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109045886 = score(doc=5571,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26668423 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050953664 = queryNorm
            0.40889513 = fieldWeight in 5571, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2338576 = idf(docFreq=640, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One of the presumed advantages of next-generation library catalogue interfaces is that the user experience is improved-that it is both richer and more intuitive. Often the interfaces come with little or no user-facing documentation or imbedded "help" for patrons based on an assumption of ease of use and familiarity of the experience, having followed best practices in use on the Web. While there has been much gray literature (published on library Web sites, etc.) interrogating these implicit claims and contrasting the new interfaces to traditional Web-based catalogues, this article details a consistent and formal comparison of whether users can actually accomplish common library tasks, unassisted, using these interfaces. The author has undertaken a task-based usability test of vendor-provided next-generation catalogue interfaces and Web-scale discovery tools (Encore Synergy, Summon, WorldCat Local, Primo Central, EBSCO Discovery Service). Testing was done with undergraduates across all academic disciplines. The resulting qualitative data, noting any demonstrated trouble using the software as well as feedback or suggested improvements that the users may have about the software, will assist academic libraries in making or validating purchase and subscription decisions for these interfaces as well as help vendors make data-driven decisions about interface and experience enhancements.