Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017735844 = product of:
  0.088679224 = sum of:
    0.088679224 = weight(_text_:books in 3073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088679224 = score(doc=3073,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.35820824 = fieldWeight in 3073, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3073)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

If Babel symbolized our incommensurate ambition, the Library of Alexandria showed how this Ambition might be achieved. Set up by Ptolemy I in the third century B.C., it was meant to hold every book an every imaginable subject. To ensure that no title escaped its vast catalog. a royal decree ordered that any book brought into the City was to be confiscated and copied; only then would the original (sometimes the copy) be returned. A curious document from the second century B.C., the perhaps apocryphal "Letter of Aristeas," recounts the library's origins. To assemble a universal library (says the letter), King Ptolemy wrote "to all the sovereigns and governors an earth" begging them to send to him every kind of book by every kind of author, "poets and prose writers, rhetoricians and sophists, doctors and soothsayers, historians and all others, too." The king's librarians calculated that they required 500.000 scrolls if they were to collect in Alexandria "all the books of all the peoples of the world." But even this (by our standards) modest stock of a half-million books was too much for any reader. The librarians of Alexandria devised a system of annotated catalogs for which they chose works, they deemed especially important, and appended a brief description to each title - one of the earliest "recommended reading" lists. In Alexandria, it became clear that the greater your ambition, the narrower your scope. But our ambition persists recently, the most popular Internet search service. Google, announced that it had concluded agreements with several leading research libraries to make some of their books available online to researchers.
The practical arguments for such a step are irrefutable: quantity, speed, precision, on-demand availability are no doubt important to the scholar: And new technologies need not be exclusionary. The invention of photography did not eliminate painting, it renewed it, and no doubt the screen and the reference books can feed oft Bach other and coexist amicably an the same reader's desk. All we need to do is remember the corollaries tethe arguments in favor of a virtual library:" that reading, in orderto allow reflection, requires slowness, depth and context; that leafing through a material book or roaming through material shelves is an intimate part of the craft; that the omnipresent electronic technology is still fragile and that, as it changes. we keep losing the possibility of retrieving that which was once stored in now outdated containers. We can still read the words an papyrus ashes saved from the charred ruins of Pompeii; we don't know for how lung it will be possible to read a text inscribed in a 2004 CD. This is not a complaint just a reminder. Jorge Luis Berges invented a Bouvard-and-Pécuchet-like charafter who tries to compile a universal encyclopedia so complete that nothing world be excluded from it. In the end, like his French forerunners, he falls. but not entirely. On the evening an which he gives up bis great project. he hires. a horse and buggy and takes a tour of the city. He sees brick walls, ordinary people. houses, a river, a marketplace and feels that somehow all these things are his own work. He realizes that his project was not impossible but merely redundant. The world encyclopedia, the universal library, already exists and is the world itself."

Footnote

Beilage zur Süddeutschen Zeitung. - Mit einer Abbildung: The Library of Alexandria, established in the third century B.C., amassed an imposing collection of 500.000 books.

0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 4204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=4204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4204)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2003 12:25:38

0.013740423 = product of:
  0.06870212 = sum of:
    0.06870212 = weight(_text_:22 in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06870212 = score(doc=1423,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2008 13:28:00

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 55(2008) H.1, S.18-22

0.013740423 = product of:
  0.06870212 = sum of:
    0.06870212 = weight(_text_:22 in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06870212 = score(doc=3017,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2009 13:22:50

0.013738128 = product of:
  0.06869064 = sum of:
    0.06869064 = weight(_text_:books in 3099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06869064 = score(doc=3099,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.27746695 = fieldWeight in 3099, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3099)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

David Nasaw, a historian and director of the Center for the Humanities at the City University of New York's Graduate Center, said the ability to use keywords to locate books and documents could save academics traveltime and money and broaden their research. "This all captures people's imagination in a wonderful way," Said Kate Wittenberg, director of the Electronic Publishing Initiative at Columbia University. "But whether it's right or wrong is not the whole question and not the whole answer." This year Ms. Wittenberg's group completed a three-year study of research habits that included 1,233 students. The study concluded that electronic resources had become the main tool for gathering information, particularly among undergraduates. But Ms. Wittenberg does have concerns. "What I've learned is that libraries help people formulate questions as well as find answers," Ms. Wittenberg said. "Who will do that in a virtual world?" On the other hand, she Said, an enhanced databank could make it easier for students to research topics across disciplines. For example, a topic like "climate change" touches an both political science and science, she Said, and "in the physical world, the books about them are in two different buildings at Columbia." Online research could bring the two subjects together instantly. Robert Darnton, a professor of history at Princeton who is writing a book about the history of books, noted that by looking at a book's binding and paper quality, a researcher can discern much about the period in which it was published, the publisher and the intended audience.

0.013086656 = product of:
  0.06543328 = sum of:
    0.06543328 = weight(_text_:books in 512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06543328 = score(doc=512,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.26430926 = fieldWeight in 512, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=512)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The range, depths and limits of what we know depend on the media with which we attempt to record our knowledge. This essay begins with a brief review of developments in a) media: stone, manuscripts, books and digital media, to trace how collections of recorded knowledge expanded to 235,000 in 1837 and have expanded to over 100 million unique titles in a single database including over 1 billion individual listings in 2007. The advent of digital media has brought full text scanning and electronic networks, which enable us to consult digital books and images from our office, home or potentially even with our cell phones. These magnificent developments raise a number of concerns and new challenges. An historical survey of major projects that changed the world reveals that they have taken from one to eight centuries. This helps explain why commercial offerings, which offer useful, and even profitable short-term solutions often undermine a long-term vision. New technologies have the potential to transform our approach to knowledge, but require a vision of a systematic new approach to knowledge. This paper outlines four ingredients for such a vision in the European context. First, the scope of European observatories should be expanded to inform memory institutions of latest technological developments. Second, the quest for a European Digital Library should be expanded to include a distributed repository, a digital reference room and a virtual agora, whereby memory institutions will be linked with current research;. Third, there is need for an institute on Knowledge Organization that takes up anew Otlet's vision, and the pioneering efforts of the Mundaneum (Brussels) and the Bridge (Berlin). Fourth, we need to explore requirements for a Universal Digital Library, which works with countries around the world rather than simply imposing on them an external system. Here, the efforts of the proposed European University of Culture could be useful. Ultimately we need new systems, which open research into multiple ways of knowing, multiple "knowledges". In the past, we went to libraries to study the recorded world. In a world where cameras and sensors are omnipresent we have new recording worlds. In future, we may also use these recording worlds to study the riches of libraries.

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 5196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=5196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5196, 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=5196)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.1, S.22-35

0.010575616 = product of:
  0.052878078 = sum of:
    0.052878078 = weight(_text_:books in 3000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052878078 = score(doc=3000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.21359414 = fieldWeight in 3000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3000)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper discusses the ontology of the document and questions whether or not our understanding of the concept of a document has changed now that more and more information is transmitted through increasingly digital means. Moreover, the argument is advanced that the identity of librarians is bound up with the future of the document. Not merely should librarians be changing their roles as a reaction to new technologies but they need to be proactive in embracing change and not in any way resisting it. The paper focuses on the theory of the ontology of documents. A number of ideas will be discussed including the thoughts of Michael Buckland in his seminal paper 'What is a Document' (1997), and further discussion will draw on the work of Michel Foucault (1972), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1958, 1969) and more recently Ziming Liu (2004) among others. Is the concept of a document essentially the same or has the transformation of document to e-document brought about a fundamental change in its nature. The paper goes on to discuss the more practical nature of documents and the role of the librarian. There follows a brief review of a range of types of document, including: E-journals, E-books, and considers the prospect that Extensible Markup Language (XML) offers a technological vehicle for the advent of an E-collection - this being an aggregation of different document mediums. The notion of the delivery of this information to the user (consumer) is then considered and with it the role of librarian. Waaijers (2002) has argued that a consequence of digitisation has brought with it issues of ownership and responsibility, and refers to XML as offering the possibility of "anatomising the internal structure of the document." In the concluding part to this paper some speculative thoughts are advanced on what might be possible outcomes regarding the changing perceptions of what a document might be. Could the Modern Librarian's identity and function be inextricably linked to the concept of the document? Finally it is suggested that further research to gather empirical evidence could involve a comparative study of the providers of information and the users of information focussing on their respective concepts of a document.

0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27. 5.2001 16:22:21

0.0049072937 = product of:
  0.024536468 = sum of:
    0.024536468 = weight(_text_:22 in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024536468 = score(doc=524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=524)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

26. 4.2002 11:22:22

0.004857973 = product of:
  0.024289865 = sum of:
    0.024289865 = weight(_text_:22 in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024289865 = score(doc=3556,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3556, 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=3556)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33

0.0041639768 = product of:
  0.020819884 = sum of:
    0.020819884 = weight(_text_:22 in 5745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020819884 = score(doc=5745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 5745, 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=5745)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Für Optimisten wie den amerikanischen Computerwissenschaftler Nicholas Negroponte bricht das kommende Digitalzeitalter wie eine Naturgewalt über uns herein. Als Zukunftsforscher kann ich jedoch nicht in den Tenor der üblichen kühnen Prophezeiungen der Medienbranche einstimmen. In Deutschland und den USA wird zwar viel über E-Commerce spekuliert. In Wirklichkeit nutzen aber die privaten Verbraucher dort Shopping, Reisebuchung und Bücherkauf per PC kaum (je unter 3 %), Hornebanking nur 5 % der Amerikaner und 3 % der Deutschen. Obwohl immer mehr Firmen online gehen, halten die Verbraucher weitgehend an ihren außerhäuslichen Konsumgewohnheiten fest. Bisher bietet das Netz gefühls- und erlebnismäßig einfach zu wenig. Auch 2010 werden über 90 % des privaten Verbrauchs nicht über OnlineGeschäfte getätigt. Selbst wenn sich der E-Commerce-Umsatz der privaten Verbraucher jährlich verdoppeln sollte, werden die Online-Geschäfte in Deutschland auch 2002 keine 3 % des Einzelhandelsumsatzes ausmachen (derzeit: 22 Milliarden Mark Einzelhandelsumsatz zu 2,5 Milliarden aus Online-Geschäften). Die Frage, warum Online-Shopping so wenig Resonanz findet, lässt sich auf folgende Ursachen zurückführen: Erlebniskonsum in den Shopping-Centern ist attraktiver; wachsende Ungeduld bei langem Laden der Website, Unzufriedenheit über verwirrend gestaltete Online-Shops, Enttäuschung über nicht verfügbare Produkte sowie Abbruch der Kaufabsicht, wenn das Shop-System abstürzt. Leider findet die digitale Revolution in Deutschland bisher fast nur auf Unternehmensseite statt, die Fragen nach den Bedürfnissen der Konsumenten bleiben weitgehend unbeantwortet.