Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. White, R.W.: Interactions with search systems (2016) 0.07 
    0.073758 = product of:
  0.110636994 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.056086253 = product of:
      0.11217251 = sum of:
        0.11217251 = weight(_text_:search in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11217251 = score(doc=3612,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.6368113 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Information seeking is a fundamental human activity. In the modern world, it is frequently conducted through interactions with search systems. The retrieval and comprehension of information returned by these systems is a key part of decision making and action in a broad range of settings. Advances in data availability coupled with new interaction paradigms, and mobile and cloud computing capabilities, have created a broad range of new opportunities for information access and use. In this comprehensive book for professionals, researchers, and students involved in search system design and evaluation, search expert Ryen White discusses how search systems can capitalize on new capabilities and how next-generation systems must support higher order search activities such as task completion, learning, and decision making. He outlines the implications of these changes for the evolution of search evaluation, as well as challenges that extend beyond search systems in areas such as privacy and societal benefit.
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Lewandowski, D.: Wie "Next Generation Search Systems" die Suche auf eine neue Ebene heben und die Informationswelt verändern. In: http://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=254&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045..
    LCSH
    Search engines / Technological innovations
    Subject
    Search engines / Technological innovations
  2. Lügger, J.: Neustart für Bibliotheken ins Informationszeitalter (2006) 0.07 
    0.067374445 = product of:
  0.101061665 = sum of:
    0.0771464 = weight(_text_:book in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0771464 = score(doc=889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34485358 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
    0.023915261 = product of:
      0.047830522 = sum of:
        0.047830522 = weight(_text_:search in 889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047830522 = score(doc=889,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 889, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Wir erleben zu Beginn des aufkommenden Informationszeitalters mit dem Siegeszug von Google und anderen Internet-Technologien einen Wandel im Verhalten von Wissenschaftlern und Studenten, der mit dem Einsatz von Google Scholar und Google Book Search einem Paradigmenwechsel für Bibliotheken und Informationsversorger gleichkommt. Der Artikel untersucht die technischen Hintergründe für den Erfolg dieser besonderen Art des Information Retrievals: Fulltext Indexing und Citation Ranking als besondere Form des Information Mining. Er diskutiert Stärken und auch Schwächen des Google-Ansatzes. Der Autor stellt sich auch der Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen es möglich ist, ein zu Google Scholar und der Google Book Search konkurrenzfähiges Retrieval in der Landschaft der Bibliotheken und Bibliotheksverbünde zu errichten. Die These ist, dass dieses unter Einsatz des Open Source Indexierers Lucene und des Web-Robots Nutch möglich ist. Bibliotheken können durch gezielten Einsatz solcher Internet-Technologien dem Nutzer die Leistungen, welche Google uns mit seinen Tools im Visible Web und mit Referenzen auf Citations in der Welt der Literatur zur Verfügung stellt, in vergleichbarer Art auch für ihre eigenen durch Lizenzen geschützten digitalen Journale und ihre speziellen lokal verfügbaren Ressourcen, auf die Internet-Suchmaschinen keine Zugriff haben, anbieten. Es besteht die Hoffnung, dass Nutzer dann nicht - wie in einer kürzlich erschienenen Studie des OCLC konstatiert - überwiegend im Internet verbleiben, sondern bei ihrer Suche auch den Weg zu den Angeboten der örtlichen Bibliothek attraktiv finden.
  3. Puglisi, P.: "¬The day has not yet come ..." : book-jackets in library catalogs (2015) 0.05 
    0.053448595 = product of:
  0.16034578 = sum of:
    0.16034578 = weight(_text_:book in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16034578 = score(doc=1883,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.7167647 = fieldWeight in 1883, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1883)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In 1971 the eminent American scholar G. Thomas Tanselle wrote: "the day has not yet come when one can learn anything of a library's holdings of jackets by consulting its catalogue." Forty-four years later, library catalogs still do not allow that. Book-jackets, whose "original sin" is their being physically separate from the book, are nevertheless essential documents for the history of publishing. This article aims to show the necessity for access to the information about a single book's book-jacket directly from the library catalog; it considers the reasons why catalogers usually "distrust" book-jackets; and it aims to determine whether there is any change in attitude about taking book-jackets into account in cataloging.
  4. Libraries and Google (2005) 0.05 
    0.052190732 = product of:
  0.0782861 = sum of:
    0.061717123 = weight(_text_:book in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061717123 = score(doc=1973,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.27588287 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.016568977 = product of:
      0.033137955 = sum of:
        0.033137955 = weight(_text_:search in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033137955 = score(doc=1973,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.18812653 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Google[trademark] has become a nearly omnipresent tool of the Internet, with its potential only now beginning to be realised. How can librarians effectively integrate this powerful search engine to provide service to their patrons? "Libraries and Google[trademark]" presents leading authorities discussing the many possibilities of using Google products as effective, user-friendly tools in libraries. Google Scholar and Print are extensively explored with an eye towards offering an expanded view of what is and may be possible for the future, with practical insights on how to make the most of the product's capabilities.
    Content
    Introduction: Libraries and Their Interrelationships with Google - William Miller Disruptive Beneficence: The Google Print Program and the Future of Libraries - Mark Sandler The Google Library Project at Oxford - Ronald Milne The (Uncertain) Future of Libraries in a Google World: Sounding an Alarm - Rick Anderson A Gaggle of Googles: Limitations and Defects of Electronic Access as Panacea - -Mark Y. Herring Using the Google Search Appliance for Federated Searching: A Case Study - Mary Taylor Google's Print and Scholar Initiatives: The Value of and Impact on Libraries and Information Services - Robert J. Lackie Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the Performance of Schoogle - Burton Callicott; Debbie Vaughn Google, the Invisible Web, and Librarians: Slaying the Research Goliath - Francine Egger-Sider; Jane Devine Choices in the Paradigm Shift: Where Next for Libraries? - Shelley E. Phipps; Krisellen Maloney Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library - Maurice C. York Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use - Janice Adlington; Chris Benda Running with the Devil: Accessing Library-Licensed Full Text Holdings Through Google Scholar - Rebecca Donlan; Rachel Cooke Directing Students to New Information Types: A New Role for Google in Literature Searches? - Mike Thelwall Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy Rachael Cathcart - Amanda Roberts Optimising Publications for Google Users - Alan Dawson Google and Privacy - Paul S. Piper Image: Google's Most Important Product - Ron Force Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack - Michael J. Krasulski; Steven J. Bell
    Footnote
    Co-published simultaneously as Internet reference services quarterly, vol. 10(1005), nos. 3/4 Rez. in: ZfBB 54(2007) H.2, S.98-99 (D. Lewandowski): "Google und Bibliotheken? Meist hat man leider den Eindruck, dass hier eher ein oder gedacht wird. Dies sehen auch die Herausgeber des vorliegenden Bandes und nehmen deshalb neben Beiträgen zur Diskussion um die Rolle der Bibliotheken im Zeitalter von Google auch solche auf, die Tipps zur Verwendung unterschiedlicher Google-Dienste geben. Die allgemeine Diskussion um Google und die Bibliotheken dreht sich vor allem um die Rolle, die Bibliotheken (mit ihren Informationsportalen) noch spielen können, wenn ihre Nutzer sowieso bei Google suchen, auch wenn die Bibliotheksangebote (zumindest von den Bibliothekaren) als überlegen empfunden werden. Auch wenn die Nutzer geschult werden, greifen sie doch meist lieber zur einfachen Recherchemöglichkeit bei Google oder anderen Suchmaschinen - vielleicht lässt sich die Situation am besten mit dem Satz eines im Buch zitierten Bibliothekars ausdrücken: »Everyone starts with Google except librarians.« (5.95) Sollen die Bibliotheken nun Google die einfache Recherche ganz überlassen und sich auf die komplexeren Suchfragen konzentrieren? Oder verlieren sie dadurch eine Nutzerschaft, die sich mittlerweile gar nicht mehr vorstellen kann, dass man mit anderen Werkzeugen als Suchmaschinen bessere Ergebnisse erzielen kann? Diese sicherlich für die Zukunft der Bibliotheken maßgebliche Frage wird in mehreren Beiträgen diskutiert, wobei auffällt, dass die jeweiligen Autoren keine klare Antwort bieten können, wie Bibliotheken ihre Quellen so präsentieren können, dass die Nutzer mit der Recherche so zufrieden sind, dass sie freiwillig in den Bibliotheksangeboten anstatt in Google recherchieren. Den Schwerpunkt des Buchs machen aber nicht diese eher theoretischen Aufsätze aus, sondern solche, die sich mit konkreten Google-Diensten beschäftigen. Aufgrund ihrer Nähe zu den Bibliotheksangeboten bzw. den Aufgaben der Bibliotheken sind dies vor allem Google Print und Google Scholar, aber auch die Google Search Appliance. Bei letzterer handelt es sich um eine integrierte Hard- und Softwarelösung, die die Indexierung von Inhalten aus unterschiedlichen Datenquellen ermöglicht. Der Aufsatz von Mary Taylor beschreibt die Vor- und Nachteile des Systems anhand der praktischen Anwendung in der University of Nevada.
    Ebenfalls direkt aus der Praxis erhält der Leser Informationen zum Google-PrintProgramm. Robert Milne beschreibt die Zusammenarbeit von Google und der Universität Oxford. In diesem Aufsatz wird - was dem Autor natürlich nicht anzulasten ist - ein Problem des vorliegenden Werks deutlich: Viele Informationen sind doch von sehr beschränkter Haltbarkeit. Der Redaktionsschluss war im Frühsommer 2005, sodass sich in vielen Bereichen bereits neue Entwicklungen ergeben haben. Dies ist beim Print-Programm der Fall, vor allem wird es aber bei dem Hauptthema des Bandes, nämlich Google Scholar, deutlich. Dieser Dienst wurde im November 2004 gestartet und stieß auf unterschiedlichste Reaktionen, die (anhand von Beispielen amerikanischer Bibliotheken) im Beitrag von Maurice C. York beschrieben werden. Einige Bibliotheken nahmen den Dienst begeistert auf und verlinkten diesen mit Lob versehen auf ihren Websites. Andere reagierten gegenteilig und warnten vor dessen schlechter Qualität. Auch weil vorauszusehen war, dass Google Scholar bei den Nutzern gut ankommen würde, darf das folgende Statement von einer Bibliothekswebsite geradezu als ignorant gelten: Google Scholar »is wonderful for those who do not have access to the library's databases« (S.119). Wie nun die Scholar-Nutzer auf die Bibliotheksangebote gelenkt werden können, beschreibt der ironisch »Running with the Devil« betitelte Aufsatz von Rebecca Donlan und Rachel Cooke. Die Autorinnen beschreiben den Einsatz von Link-Resolvern und gehen auf die in Google Scholar bestehenden Probleme durch unklare Bezeichnungen in den Trefferlisten ein. Einige Beispiele zeigen, dass Google Scholar auch in Kombination mit der Verlinkung auf die Bibliotheksbestände keine befriedigende Recherchesituation herstellt, sondern vielmehr weitere Anstrengungen nötig sind, um »das Beste beider Welten« zusammenzuführen. Zwei weitere Aufsätze beschäftigen sich mit der Frage, wie gut Google Scholar eigentlich ist. Einmal geht es darum, wie gut Scholar den »ACRL Information Literacy Standards« genügt. Der zweite Beitrag vergleicht Google Scholar anhand von fünf Suchaufgaben einerseits mit einem lokalen Bibliothekskatalog, andererseits mit EBSCOs Academic Search Premier und jeweils einer fachspezifischen Datenbank. Die Ergebnisse zeigen keine durchgehende Überlegenheit einer Suchlösung, vielmehr wird deutlich, dass es auf die Auswahl des richtigen Suchwerkzeugs für die bestehende Suchanfrage ankommt bzw. dass erst eine Kombination dieser Werkzeuge zu optimalen Ergebnissen führt. Man könnte also auch hier wieder sagen: Google und Bibliotheken, nicht Google oder Bibliotheken.
    Weitere Rez. in JASIST 59(2008) H.9, S.1531-1533 (J. Satyanesan): "Libraries and Google is an interesting and enlightening compilation of 18 articles on Google and its impact on libraries. The topic is very current, debatable, and thought provoking. Google has profoundly empowered individuals and transformed access to information and librarians are very much concerned about its popularity and visibility. In this book, the leading authorities discuss the usefulness of Google, its influence and potential menace to libraries, and its implications for libraries and the scholarly communication. They offer practical suggestions to cope with the changing situation. The articles are written from different perspective and express all shades of opinion, both hopeful and fearful. One can discern varied moods-apprehension, resignation, encouragement, and motivation-on the part of the librarians. This is an important book providing a wealth of information for the 21st century librarian. There is a section called "Indexing, Abstracting & Website/Internet Coverage," which lists major indexing and abstracting services and other tools for bibliographic access. The format of the articles is uniform with an introduction, key words, and with the exception of two articles the rest have summaries and conclusions. References and notes of varying lengths are included in each article. This book has been copublished simultaneously as Internet Reference Quarterly, 10(3/4), 2005. Although there are single articles written on Google and libraries, this is the first book-length treatment of the topic.
    ... This book is written by library professionals and aimed at the librarians in particular, but it will be useful to others who may be interested in knowing what libraries are up to in the age of Google. It is intended for library science educators and students, library administrators, publishers and university presses. It is well organized, well researched, and easily readable. Article titles are descriptive, allowing the reader to find what he needs by scanning the table of contents or by consulting the index. The only flaw in this book is the lack of summary or conclusions in a few articles. The book is in paperback and has 240 pages. This book is a significant contribution and I highly recommend it."
    LCSH
    Web search engines
    Subject
    Web search engines
  5. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.05 
    0.050299995 = product of:
  0.07544999 = sum of:
    0.061717123 = weight(_text_:book in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061717123 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.27588287 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.013732869 = product of:
      0.027465738 = sum of:
        0.027465738 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027465738 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  6. Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.04 
    0.03811274 = product of:
  0.05716911 = sum of:
    0.043640595 = weight(_text_:book in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043640595 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.19507864 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.013528514 = product of:
      0.027057027 = sum of:
        0.027057027 = weight(_text_:search in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027057027 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.
  7. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.03 
    0.03180495 = product of:
  0.09541484 = sum of:
    0.09541484 = sum of:
      0.0473498 = weight(_text_:search in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0473498 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04806504 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  8. Hedman, T.: Utkast till en deskriptiv teori for katalogsokning / informationsatervinning (1997) 0.03 
    0.030858565 = product of:
  0.09257569 = sum of:
    0.09257569 = weight(_text_:book in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09257569 = score(doc=2586,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.41382432 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In pt.1, argued that modern classification theory and philosophy of science can help us understand problems of searching. In pt.2, discusses the problems in a more technical sense. considers thesauri and studies of of concept formation: choice of subject headings; definitions, and associations between subject headings; and the librarian as intermediary between the users and the library's texts. Tests the hypothesis that a catalogue record can be improved by adding information which makes the record more precise. If a record clearly indicates that a book is a typical or non-typical book on a subject, no improvement is necessary. discusses how and what new information to add and psychological barriers to this
  9. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027261382 = product of:
  0.081784144 = sum of:
    0.081784144 = sum of:
      0.04058554 = weight(_text_:search in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04058554 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041198608 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  10. Hedman, T.: Utkast till en deskriptiv teori for katalogsokning / informationsatervinning (1997) 0.03 
    0.025457015 = product of:
  0.076371044 = sum of:
    0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076371044 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Library information searching lacks a descriptive theory which explains how a user decides to borrow one book and not another. Such theory should act as a reference framework against which cataloguing rules and the classification system can be measured, and should be based on 2 complementary perspectives, described in detail: modern classification theory, which explains what cataloguing and classification involve, and philosophy of science, which explains what happens when the user meets the catalogue record. Catalogue information must answer which work is described, and why this work on the subject is chosen. A descriptive theory is especially necessary for knowing what new information to add to the catalogue. Discusses this in a subsequent article
  11. Kevil, L.H.: ¬The paper library : beyond the automated card catalog (1998) 0.03 
    0.025457015 = product of:
  0.076371044 = sum of:
    0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076371044 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Without reform and adaptation to contemporary technology, existing paper libraries may become increasingly marginalized and eventually little more than book museums. Proposes a new method to organize access to paper resources by using relational database management systems technology to change libraries' existing data structures and concepts of organization of materials in order to create an open, shared, easy-to-use and cooperatively maintained system. Without substantial proactive change, users familiar with accessing and manipulating digital materials will become very intolerant of the anomalies and archaisms of libraries' card-based automated catalogues. Outlines the benefits of such a system and lists considerations which should be taken into account in its design
  12. Anderson, J.D.: Catalog file display principles and the new filing rules (1981) 0.02 
    0.0218203 = product of:
  0.0654609 = sum of:
    0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0654609 = score(doc=278,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    File display-the way in which catalog records are arranged for display-is a principal determinant of access to printed library catalogs, whether they be on cards, on microform, or in book form. In 1980, both the American Library Association and the Library of Congress published new sets of filing rules which represent significant departures from traditional library catalog arrangement in North America. These new rules are analyzed and compared with each other and with their predecessors, the 1956 LC and the 1968 ALA filing rules, on the basis of fundamental attributes of files and filing: (1) the symbols considered in arranging records together with the filing values assigned to them, and (2) the underlying basis of filing-symbols or concepts. Numerous examples of the very different sequences which result in the application of these codes are provided and discussed. The purpose of this paper is to help clarify filing options and thereby to help librarians make more informed choices for the display of their own catalog files.
  13. Broadbent, E.: ¬The online catalog : dictionary, classified, or both? (1989) 0.02 
    0.0218203 = product of:
  0.0654609 = sum of:
    0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0654609 = score(doc=457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The main purpose of the study was to determine if the online catalog can function both as a dictionary and classified catalog without requiring additional time or intellectual effort on the part of the cataloger. A total of 1842 MARC bibliographic records listed in the 370-379 classified section of American Book Publishing Record were studied. These records displayed 2735 subject headings. Of these, 1491 (55%) had a Library of Congress classification number linked to them. An alphabetical and classified index was created using primary subjects and their related classification numbers. While such an index could be a useful browsing device if integrated into an online catalog, creating a bona fide classified catalog would require assigning classification numbers to the secondary subject headings.
  14. Adler, M.: ¬The strangeness of subject cataloging : afterword (2020) 0.02 
    0.020572376 = product of:
  0.061717123 = sum of:
    0.061717123 = weight(_text_:book in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061717123 = score(doc=5887,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.27588287 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    "I can't presume to know how other catalogers view the systems, information resources, and institutions with which they engage on a daily basis. David Paton gives us a glimpse in this issue of the affective experiences of bibliographers and catalogers of artists' books in South Africa, and it is clear that the emotional range among them is wide. What I can say is that catalogers' feelings and worldviews, whatever they may be, give the library its shape. I think we can agree that the librarians who constructed the Library of Congress Classification around 1900, Melvil Dewey, and the many classifiers around the world past and present, have had particular sets of desires around control and access and order. We all are asked to submit to those desires in our library work, as well as our own pursuit of knowledge and pleasure reading. And every decision regarding the aboutness of a book, or about where to place it within a particular discipline, takes place in a cataloger's affective and experiential world. While the classification provides the outlines, the catalogers color in the spaces with the books, based on their own readings of the book descriptions and their interpretations of the classification scheme. The decisions they make and the structures to which they are bound affect the circulation of books and their readers across the library. Indeed, some of the encounters will be unexpected, strange, frustrating, frightening, shame-inducing, awe-inspiring, and/or delightful. The emotional experiences of students described in Mabee and Fancher's article, as well as those of any visitor to the library, are all affected by classificatory design. One concern is that a library's ordering principles may reinforce or heighten already existing feelings of precarity or marginality. Because the classifications are hidden from patrons' view, it is difficult to measure the way the order affects a person's mind and body. That a person does not consciously register the associations does not mean that they are not affected."
  15. Hafter, R.: ¬The performance of card catalogs : a review of research (1979) 0.02 
    0.018310493 = product of:
  0.054931477 = sum of:
    0.054931477 = product of:
      0.10986295 = sum of:
        0.10986295 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10986295 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    3.10.2000 20:48:22
  16. Tennant, R.: ¬The print perplex : building the future catalog (1998) 0.02 
    0.018310493 = product of:
  0.054931477 = sum of:
    0.054931477 = product of:
      0.10986295 = sum of:
        0.10986295 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10986295 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24
  17. Jett, M.; Reuse, B.; Kessling, G.: Implementation of an online database for tables of contents of books (1998) 0.02 
    0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 1861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=1861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 1861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1861)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Many small libraries do not have the resources to build a holdings database but the availability of affordable scanners and improved OCR software has made possible a new approach for creating online databases. Describes the work undertaken at the Otto Hahn Library of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Germany, to create a database consisting of the titles, bibliographic descriptions and contents tables of books acquired by the library. The book information and table of contents pages are scanned and converted to text using OCR software. A computer program is used to extract as much information as possible, in particular from the CIP data with corrections and missing information being supplied manually. Finally, the information, which consists of: title; author; ISBN; publication year; call number; series; language; and other relevant information for books, as well as the entire table of contents, is stored and added to an Ovid database using the Ovid Local Loader software. Pays particular attention to the algorithm used to extract specific information from the CIP data. 2 OCR software packeges have been tested: OmniPage Pro 7.0 and FineReader 3.0. Experience has shown that FineReader is better at character recognition and retains the formatting better but OmniPage Pro is easier to train to recognize special characters
  18. Lubetzky, S.: Principles of cataloging (2001) 0.02 
    0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.
  19. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.02 
    0.018174257 = product of:
  0.054522768 = sum of:
    0.054522768 = sum of:
      0.027057027 = weight(_text_:search in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027057027 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.027465738 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027465738 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.
    Date
    17. 6.2015 14:40:22
  20. Lewandowski, D.: Wie "Next Generation Search Systems" die Suche auf eine neue Ebene heben und die Informationswelt verändern (2017) 0.02 
    0.015621383 = product of:
  0.04686415 = sum of:
    0.04686415 = product of:
      0.0937283 = sum of:
        0.0937283 = weight(_text_:search in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0937283 = score(doc=3611,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.5321022 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Suchmaschinen befinden sich einerseits in einem beständigen Wandel. Andererseits gibt es immer wieder Entwicklungen, die die Suche "auf eine neue Ebene" heben. Eine solche Entwicklung, die wir zurzeit erleben, wird unter dem Label "Next Generation Search Systems" geführt. Der Begriff fasst die Veränderungen durch eine Vielfalt von Geräten und Eingabemöglichkeiten, die Verfügbarkeit von Verhaltensdaten en masse und den Wandel von Dokumenten zu Antworten zusammen.
    Footnote
    Bezug zum Buch: White, R.: Interactions with search systems. New York ; Cambridge University Press ; 2016.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 62
  • d 18
  • f 1
  • i 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 76
  • el 6
  • m 5
  • b 3
  • r 2
  • s 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications