Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024762837 = product of:
  0.049525674 = sum of:
    0.049525674 = product of:
      0.09905135 = sum of:
        0.09905135 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09905135 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.016414512 = product of:
  0.032829024 = sum of:
    0.032829024 = product of:
      0.06565805 = sum of:
        0.06565805 = weight(_text_:2000 in 1218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06565805 = score(doc=1218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.3134154 = fieldWeight in 1218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The University of California's California Digital Library (CDL) formed an Ebook Task Force in August 2000 to evaluate academic libraries' experiences with electronic books (e-books), investigate the e-book market, and develop operating guidelines, principles and potential strategies for further exploration of the use of e-books at the University of California (UC). This article, based on the findings and recommendations of the Task Force Report, briefly summarizes task force findings, and outlines issues and recommendations for making e-books viable over the long term in the academic environment, based on the long-term goals of building strong research collections and providing high level services and collections to its users.

0.014007976 = product of:
  0.028015953 = sum of:
    0.028015953 = product of:
      0.056031905 = sum of:
        0.056031905 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056031905 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.012256979 = product of:
  0.024513958 = sum of:
    0.024513958 = product of:
      0.049027916 = sum of:
        0.049027916 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049027916 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.012184615 = product of:
  0.02436923 = sum of:
    0.02436923 = product of:
      0.04873846 = sum of:
        0.04873846 = weight(_text_:2000 in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04873846 = score(doc=1222,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.23265061 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.
Citation linking is thus also a huge benefit to journal publishers, because, as with electronic bookselling, it drives readers to their content in yet another way. In step with what was largely a subscription-based economy for journal sales, an "article economy" appears to be emerging. Journal publishers sell an increasing amount of their content on an article basis, whether through document delivery services, aggregators, or their own pay-per-view systems. At the same time, most research-oriented access to digitized material is still mediated by libraries. Resource discovery services must be able to authenticate subscribed or licensed users somewhere in the process, and ensure that a given user is accessing as a default the version of an article that their library may have already paid for. The well-known "appropriate copy" issue is addressed below. Another benefit to publishers from including outgoing citation links is simply the value they can add to their own journals. Publishers carry out the bulk of the technological prototyping and development that has produced electronic journals and the enhanced functionality readers have come to expect. There is clearly competition among them to provide readers with the latest features. That a number of publishers would agree to collaborate in the establishment of an infrastructure for reference linking was thus by no means predictable. CrossRef was incorporated in January of 2000 as a collaborative venture among 12 of the world's top scientific and scholarly publishers, both commercial and not-for-profit, to enable cross-publisher reference linking throughout the digital journal literature. The founding members were Academic Press, a Harcourt Company; the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of Science); American Institute of Physics (AIP); Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); Blackwell Science; Elsevier Science; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE); Kluwer Academic Publishers (a Wolters Kluwer Company); Nature; Oxford University Press; Springer-Verlag; and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Start-up funds for CrossRef were provided as loans from eight of the original publishers.

0.010505982 = product of:
  0.021011963 = sum of:
    0.021011963 = product of:
      0.042023927 = sum of:
        0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042023927 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.0070347907 = product of:
  0.014069581 = sum of:
    0.014069581 = product of:
      0.028139163 = sum of:
        0.028139163 = weight(_text_:2000 in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028139163 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.13432088 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.

0.007003988 = product of:
  0.014007976 = sum of:
    0.014007976 = product of:
      0.028015953 = sum of:
        0.028015953 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028015953 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.