Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021151232 = product of:
  0.105756156 = sum of:
    0.105756156 = weight(_text_:books in 4296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105756156 = score(doc=4296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.42718828 = fieldWeight in 4296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4296)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This experiment searches an online library catalog employing author surnames, plus title words of books in citations of 8 scholarly works whose authors selected the title words used as being recallable. Searches comprising surname together with two recallable title words, or one if only one was available, yielded a single-screen miniature catalog (minicat) 99.0% of the time

0.015863424 = product of:
  0.079317115 = sum of:
    0.079317115 = weight(_text_:books in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079317115 = score(doc=5018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 5018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5018)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Summarizes findings of an international study on information-seeking habits and preferences: With extensive input from hundreds of librarians and OCLC staff, the OCLC Market Research team developed a project and commissioned Harris Interactive Inc. to survey a representative sample of information consumers. In June of 2005, we collected over 3,300 responses from information consumers in Australia, Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Perceptions report provides the findings and responses from the online survey in an effort to learn more about: * Library use * Awareness and use of library electronic resources * Free vs. for-fee information * The "Library" brand The findings indicate that information consumers view libraries as places to borrow print books, but they are unaware of the rich electronic content they can access through libraries. Even though information consumers make limited use of these resources, they continue to trust libraries as reliable sources of information.

0.015863424 = product of:
  0.079317115 = sum of:
    0.079317115 = weight(_text_:books in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079317115 = score(doc=3851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.3203912 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) is an information retrieval system characterized by short bibliographic records, mainly of books, journals, and audiovisual materials available in a particular library. This, coupled with a Boolean search interface and a heterogeneous user population with diverse needs, presents special problems for subject searching by end users. To perform effective subject searching in the OPAC system requires a wide range of knowledge and skills. Various approaches to improving the OPAC design for subject searching have been proposed and are reviewed in this entry. The trend toward Web-based OPAC interfaces and the developments in Internet and digital library technologies present fresh opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of the OPAC system for subject searching.

0.014956179 = product of:
  0.0747809 = sum of:
    0.0747809 = weight(_text_:books in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0747809 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30206773 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.013738128 = product of:
  0.06869064 = sum of:
    0.06869064 = weight(_text_:books in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06869064 = score(doc=1558,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.27746695 = fieldWeight in 1558, 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=1558)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"MOST INTEGRATED library systems, as they are currently configured and used, should be removed from public view. Before I say why, let me be clean that I think the integrated library system serves a very important, albeit limited, role. An integrated library system should serve as a key piece of the infrastructure of a library, handling such tasks as ma terials acquisition, cataloging (including holdings, of course), and circulation. The integrated library system should be a complete and accurate recording of a local library's holdings. It should not be presented to users as the primary system for locating information. It fails badly at that important job. - Lack of content- The central problem of almost any library catalog system is that it typically includes only information about the books and journals held by a parficular library. Most do not provide access to joumal article indexes, web search engines, or even selective web directories like the Librarians' Index to the Internet. If they do offen such access, it is only via links to these services. The library catalog is far from onestop shopping for information. Although we acknowledge that fact to each other, we still treat it as if it were the best place in the universe to begin a search. Most of us give the catalog a place of great prominente an our web pages. But Information for each book is limited to the author, title, and a few subject headings. Seldom can book reviews, jacket summaries, recommendations, or tables of contents be found-or anything at all to help users determine if they want the material. - Lack of coverage - Most catalogs do not allow patrons to discover even all the books that are available to them. If you're lucky, your catalog may cover the collections of those libraries with which you have close ties-such as a regional network. But that leaves out all those items that could be requested via interlibrary loan. As Steve Coffman pointed out in his "Building Earth's Largest Library" article, we must show our users the universe that is open to them, highlight the items most accessible, and provide an estimate of how long it would take to obtain other items. - Inability to increase coverage - Despite some well-meaning attempts to smash everything of interest into the library catalog, the fact remains that most integrated library systems expect MARC records and MARC records only. This means that whatever we want to put into the catalog must be described using MARC and AACR2 (see "Marc Must Die," LJ 10/15/02, p. 26ff.). This is a barrier to dramatically increasing the scope of a catalog system, even if we decided to do it. How would you, for example, use the Open Archives Initiative Harvesting Protocol to crawl the bibliographic records of remote repositories and make them searchable within your library catalog? It can't be dope, and it shouldn't. The library catalog should be a record of a given library's holdings. Period.
- User Interface hostility - Recently I used the Library catalogs of two public libraries, new products from two major library vendors. A link an one catalog said "Knowledge Portal," whatever that was supposed to mean. Clicking an it brought you to two choices: Z39.50 Bibliographic Sites and the World Wide Web. No public library user will have the faintest clue what Z39.50 is. The other catalog launched a Java applet that before long froze my web browser so badly I was forced to shut the program down. Pick a popular book and pretend you are a library patron. Choose three to five libraries at random from the lib web-cats site (pick catalogs that are not using your system) and attempt to find your book. Try as much as possible to see the system through the eyes of your patrons-a teenager, a retiree, or an older faculty member. You may not always like what you see. Now go back to your own system and try the same thing. - What should the public see? - Our users deserve an information system that helps them find all different kinds of resources-books, articles, web pages, working papers in institutional repositories-and gives them the tools to focus in an what they want. This is not, and should not be, the library catalog. It must communicate with the catalog, but it will also need to interface with other information systems, such as vendor databases and web search engines. What will such a tool look like? We are seeing the beginnings of such a tool in the current offerings of cross-database search tools from a few vendors (see "Cross-Database Search," LJ 10/15/01, p. 29ff). We are in the early stages of developing the kind of robust, userfriendly tool that will be required before we can pull our catalogs from public view. Meanwhile, we can begin by making what we have easier to understand and use."

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17. 8.2008 11:22:47

0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.009253663 = product of:
  0.046268314 = sum of:
    0.046268314 = weight(_text_:books in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046268314 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.18689486 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=4183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4183, 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=4183)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30. 1.2007 18:22:15

0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 1942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=1942,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1942, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1942)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2008 17:14:24

0.005551969 = product of:
  0.027759846 = sum of:
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.005551969 = product of:
  0.027759846 = sum of:
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.005551969 = product of:
  0.027759846 = sum of:
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=323)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.2007 11:19:21

0.005551969 = product of:
  0.027759846 = sum of:
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2008 13:29:15

0.005551969 = product of:
  0.027759846 = sum of:
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:40:38