Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0112844845 = product of:
  0.033853453 = sum of:
    0.033853453 = sum of:
      0.018932384 = weight(_text_:digital in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018932384 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03670994 = queryNorm
          0.13074467 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.014921068 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014921068 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03670994 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.008414392 = product of:
  0.025243176 = sum of:
    0.025243176 = product of:
      0.050486352 = sum of:
        0.050486352 = weight(_text_:digital in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050486352 = score(doc=1430,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Beyond the beginning: the global digital library; an international conference organized by UKOLN, London, 16-17 June 1997

0.0066315862 = product of:
  0.019894758 = sum of:
    0.019894758 = product of:
      0.039789516 = sum of:
        0.039789516 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039789516 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Program. 30(1996) no.1, S.1-22

0.0066315862 = product of:
  0.019894758 = sum of:
    0.019894758 = product of:
      0.039789516 = sum of:
        0.039789516 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039789516 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13

0.005258995 = product of:
  0.015776984 = sum of:
    0.015776984 = product of:
      0.03155397 = sum of:
        0.03155397 = weight(_text_:digital in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03155397 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 1483, 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=1483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There is a renaissance of interest in the catalog and catalog data. Yet it comes at a time when the catalog itself is being reconfigured in ways which may result in its disappearance as an individually identifiable component of library service. It is being subsumed within larger library discovery environments and catalog data is flowing into other systems and services. This article discusses the position of the catalog and uses it to illustrate more general discovery and workflow directions. The context of information use and creation has changed as it transitions from a world of physical distribution to one of digital distribution. In parallel, our focus shifts from the local (the library or the bookstore or ...) to the network as a whole. We turn to Google, or to Amazon, or to Expedia, or to the BBC. Think of two trends in a network environment, which I term here the attention switch and the workflow switch. Each has implications for the catalog, as it pushes the potential catalog user in other directions. Each also potentially recasts the role of the catalog in the overall information value chain.

0.004462406 = product of:
  0.013387217 = sum of:
    0.013387217 = product of:
      0.026774434 = sum of:
        0.026774434 = weight(_text_:digital in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026774434 = score(doc=1175,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.18490088 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Much progress has been made in aligning library services with changing (and increasingly digital and networked) research and learning environments. At times, however, this progress has been uneven, fragmented, and reactive. As libraries continue to engage with an ever-shifting information landscape, it is apparent that their efforts would be facilitated by a shared view of how library services should be organized and surfaced in these new settings and contexts. Recent discussions in a variety of areas underscore this point: * Institutional repositories: what is the role of the library in collecting, managing, and preserving institutional scholarly output, and what services should be offered to faculty and students in this regard? * Metasearch: how can the fragmented pieces of library collections be brought together to simplify and improve the search experience of the user? * E-learning and course management systems: how can library services be lifted out of traditional library environments and inserted into the emerging workflows of "e-scholars" and "e-learners"? * Exposing library collections to search engines: how can libraries surface their collections in the general Web search environment, and how can users be provisioned with better tools to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape? In each case, there is as yet no shared picture of the library to bring to bear on these questions; there is little consensus on the specific library services that should be expected in these environments, how they should be organized, and how they should be presented.
Libraries have not been idle in the face of the changes re-shaping their environments: in fact, much work is underway and major advances have already been achieved. But these efforts lack a unifying framework, a means for libraries, as a community, to gather the strands of individual projects and weave them into a cohesive whole. A framework of this kind would help in articulating collective expectations, assessing progress, and identifying critical gaps. As the information landscape continually shifts and changes, a framework would promote the design and implementation of flexible, interoperable library systems that can respond more quickly to the needs of libraries in serving their constituents. It will provide a port of entry for organizations outside the library domain, and help them understand the critical points of contact between their services and those of libraries. Perhaps most importantly, a framework would assist libraries in strategic planning. It would provide a tool to help them establish priorities, guide investment, and anticipate future needs in uncertain environments. It was in this context, and in recognition of efforts already underway to align library services with emerging information environments, that the Digital Library Federation (DLF) in 2005 sponsored the formation of the Service Framework Group (SFG) [1] to consider a more systematic, community-based approach to aligning the functions of libraries with increasing automation in fulfilling the needs of information environments. The SFG seeks to understand and model the research library in today's environment, by developing a framework within which the services offered by libraries, represented both as business logic and computer processes, can be understood in relation to other parts of the institutional and external information landscape. This framework will help research institutions plan wisely for providing the services needed to meet the current and emerging information needs of their constituents. A service framework is a tool for documenting a shared view of library services in changing environments; communicating it among libraries and others, and applying it to best advantage in meeting library goals. It is a means of focusing attention and organizing discussion. It is not, however, a substitute for innovation and creativity. It does not supply the answers, but facilitates the process by which answers are sought, found, and applied. This paper discusses the SFG's vision of a service framework for libraries, its approach to developing the framework, and the group's work agenda going forward.