Search (203 results, page 1 of 11)

0.027254261 = product of:
  0.054508522 = sum of:
    0.03378847 = weight(_text_:data in 8477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03378847 = score(doc=8477,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 8477, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8477)
    0.020720055 = product of:
      0.04144011 = sum of:
        0.04144011 = weight(_text_:22 in 8477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04144011 = score(doc=8477,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 8477, 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=8477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Analyses the OPAC at the Australian Catholic University in New South Wales, Castle Hill Campus using an object oriented model following Rumbaugh's methodology, as described in 'Object oriented modelling and design, 1991'. The process of analysis, although difficult, is one of the most effective ways of determining each function of a system of this kind. The methodology is especially useful as the data structure, behavioural and functional aspects of the system are displayed in separate diagrams. This is an advantage for those analysing systems, who can display many factors without confusing different aspects involved in the analysis process

Source

LASIE. 28(1997) no.4, S.22-34

0.027254261 = product of:
  0.054508522 = sum of:
    0.03378847 = weight(_text_:data in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03378847 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.020720055 = product of:
      0.04144011 = sum of:
        0.04144011 = weight(_text_:22 in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04144011 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Presents a brief report on a study, carried out by the Centre for Interactive Systems Research, City University, to investigate the techniques used for evaluating OPACs: to explore and assess different data gathering methods in studying information seeking behaviour at the on-line catalogue; and to examine how a transaction logging facility could be enhanced to serve as a more effective diagnostic tool. For a full report see British Library research paper 78

Pages

S.20-22

0.02587114 = product of:
  0.05174228 = sum of:
    0.041382253 = weight(_text_:data in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041382253 = score(doc=168,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.342302 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.010360028 = product of:
      0.020720055 = sum of:
        0.020720055 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020720055 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The effect that content and layout of bibliographic displays had on the ability of end-users to process catalog information was tested using a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design. Participants were asked to perform two related tasks during the course of the experiment. In the first task, they were asked to select a set of items that they would examine further for a hypothetical paper they must write, using a simulated online catalog to make their assessments of relevance. In the second task, they were asked to examine 20 bibliographic records, decide whether they would choose to examine these items further on the shelf, and identify the data elements that they used to formulate their relevance decision. One group viewed bibliographic records on an interface similar to current online catalogs, one that used data labels and contained data elements commonly found. A second group viewed these records on an interface in which the labels had been removed, but the data elements were the same as those in the first. The third group viewed these records on a labeled display that included enhanced data elements on the brief record display. The final group viewed these records with the same brief record data elements as the third group, but with the labels removed, using ISBD and AACR2 punctuation standards. For the first task, participants using enhanced brief screen interfaces viewed more brief screens and fewer full screens than their counterparts. Screen durations for the second 10 screens were found to have dropped from those of the first 10 screens. Statistical analyses comparing demographic variables to the screen frequencies uncovered many significant differences. Participants using the enhanced-content interfaces made fewer selections from index and full screens, and more selections from brief screens. For the second task, participants who used enhanced-content interfaces were able to make some sort of relevance judgment more frequently than those who used standard-content interfaces.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.025689062 = product of:
  0.051378123 = sum of:
    0.035838082 = weight(_text_:data in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035838082 = score(doc=3013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
    0.015540041 = product of:
      0.031080082 = sum of:
        0.031080082 = weight(_text_:22 in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031080082 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3013, 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=3013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The primary objective of the present study was to exmine whether readers conducting bibliographic searches in ALEPH - Israel's research library network - tend to search only within the OPAC of the library within which they are working or whether they access the remote OPACs of other libraries. The ALEPH network has a dezentralized database. Therefore, it was possible to examine this question because each library has its own access code and each database can be searched separately. The data were collected by means of a one-page questionnaire lefr beside each terminal in the library of the Graduate School of Library and Archive Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during an entire academic years. results of analysis of the data collected in this survey are presented in 6 tables

Date

22. 2.1999 13:06:18

0.02384748 = product of:
  0.04769496 = sum of:
    0.02956491 = weight(_text_:data in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02956491 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
    0.01813005 = product of:
      0.0362601 = sum of:
        0.0362601 = weight(_text_:22 in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0362601 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4546, 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=4546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

By the mid 1980s online bibliographic systems retrieved excessively large sets. Conversely, with standard Boolean systems, searches retrieved commonly nothing or too few records. In Nov. 92, 32% of searches yielded nothing from a retrieval set averaging 98. Offers solutions to these problems using MELVYL as a case study. Examines how non topical data such as date, language and location of document can improve topical searches. Explains OASIS and front end phototyping. Discusses adaptive retrieval, strategic commands, expanded retrieval and developments of OASIS. Covers aggregation of filtered sets, related terms, automatic progressive truncation, the SUMMARIZE LIBRARIES command, filing and filtering and collection analysis

Source

Library hi tech. 10(1992) no.4, S.7-22

0.02384748 = product of:
  0.04769496 = sum of:
    0.02956491 = weight(_text_:data in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02956491 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
    0.01813005 = product of:
      0.0362601 = sum of:
        0.0362601 = weight(_text_:22 in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0362601 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2226, 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=2226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Venice University Institute of Architecture has developed Easyweb, a software package to integrate its heterogeneous non-compatible bibliographic and multimedia databases, standardise access and create internal links, by transferring all existing OPAC applications to the Web. Features include importation of UNIMARC data, multiple window searching, multibase searching and special applications, e.g. circulation management. Easyweb is notable user friendly and has become the point of reference for OPACs in Italy

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1998, no.178, S.20-22

0.022074249 = product of:
  0.044148497 = sum of:
    0.03378847 = weight(_text_:data in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03378847 = score(doc=520,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
    0.010360028 = product of:
      0.020720055 = sum of:
        0.020720055 = weight(_text_:22 in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020720055 = score(doc=520,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 520, 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=520)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Myriad new information resources are available to contemporary library users. While print remains the foundation of most collections, libraries are also beginning to provide access to an array of bibliographic, numeric, and full-text databases. As more and more information is produced in electronic form and presented at computer workstations, the library catalog is being given an expanded role. The expanded catalog will play a crucial part in organizing information in electronic libraries, and in providing navigational assistance to library users. Like the traditional card catalog, the expanded catalog will not only lead to specific items or groups of sources, but also will provide connections to related materials. These connections will uses standard data elements to link the results of a search in one database with related material in another. For example, links will show local library holdings of sources in citation databases. Cornell University's Mann Library serves the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the College of Human Ecology, and the Division of Biological Sciences. As part of electronic library development, Mann staff have been analyzing issues involved in making it possible for Agricola and BIOSIS users to see, automatically, which of their retrieved citations are from sources available in the Cornell libraries. Samples of citations from Agricola and BIOSIS were drawn, and data elements present in these records were compared with bibliographic records of the library's holdings. In some cases, links would be provided by ISSNs. The study shows, however, that the presence of standard identifiers such as ISSN, USBN, or CODEN cannot be assumed, and other linking algorithms must be developed. This article presents study results, provides an overview of several linking systems, and identifies some of the difficulties caused by lack of standardization between different bibliographic databases. It is clear that the concept of an expanded catalog will require not only links between information resources but agreements among information professionals on standard data elements.

Date

8. 1.2007 17:22:25

0.020691127 = product of:
  0.08276451 = sum of:
    0.08276451 = weight(_text_:data in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08276451 = score(doc=124,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.684604 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Machine / readable bibliographic data
Subject cataloging / Data processing
Indexing / Data processing

Subject

Machine / readable bibliographic data
Subject cataloging / Data processing
Indexing / Data processing

0.018288545 = product of:
  0.07315418 = sum of:
    0.07315418 = weight(_text_:data in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07315418 = score(doc=3096,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.60511017 = fieldWeight in 3096, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3096)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the expansion of the traditional role of on-line catalogues OPACs in academic libraries to include: local loading of bibliographic and non-bibliographic data bases from magnetic tapes; formation of gateways to on-line data base searching, and networking via data networks such as Internet

0.01712604 = product of:
  0.03425208 = sum of:
    0.023892054 = weight(_text_:data in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023892054 = score(doc=1447,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.010360028 = product of:
      0.020720055 = sum of:
        0.020720055 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020720055 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.016894234 = product of:
  0.06757694 = sum of:
    0.06757694 = weight(_text_:data in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06757694 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.5589768 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.016894234 = product of:
  0.06757694 = sum of:
    0.06757694 = weight(_text_:data in 4006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06757694 = score(doc=4006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.5589768 = fieldWeight in 4006, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4006)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

CD data report. 3(1987) no.10, S.21-24

0.016894234 = product of:
  0.06757694 = sum of:
    0.06757694 = weight(_text_:data in 6041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06757694 = score(doc=6041,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.5589768 = fieldWeight in 6041, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6041)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.014782455 = product of:
  0.05912982 = sum of:
    0.05912982 = weight(_text_:data in 2420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05912982 = score(doc=2420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 2420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2420)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.014782455 = product of:
  0.05912982 = sum of:
    0.05912982 = weight(_text_:data in 7680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05912982 = score(doc=7680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 7680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7680)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.014782455 = product of:
  0.05912982 = sum of:
    0.05912982 = weight(_text_:data in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05912982 = score(doc=2777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 2777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2777)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library mashups: exploring new ways to deliver library data. Ed.: N.C. Engard

0.014166246 = product of:
  0.056664985 = sum of:
    0.056664985 = weight(_text_:data in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056664985 = score(doc=131,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.0128019815 = product of:
  0.051207926 = sum of:
    0.051207926 = weight(_text_:data in 6038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051207926 = score(doc=6038,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 6038, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6038)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The focus of this study is the search behavior of remote users of the University of California MELVYL Library System, an OPAC. Transaction logs from randomly selected remote user search sessions are analyzed. Descriptive data on the number and type of searches, choice of search mode and database, number of retrievals, number and type of errors, and use of system HELP facilities are presented. The search data have been cross-tabulated with demographic data on the same group of remote users, collected through an online survey conducted by the authors. Effectiveness of system usage is discussed. A case mode is made for the desirability of additional heuristics in the catalog portion of the system

0.0128019815 = product of:
  0.051207926 = sum of:
    0.051207926 = weight(_text_:data in 3318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051207926 = score(doc=3318,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 3318, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3318)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Difficulties with 'wayfinding' are common among users of electronic information systems. A study of strategies (textual, graphic, colour) for cuing users to their location in a data base showed that the presence or absence of physical cues was less important to successful searching than the user's abibiliy to represent internally the structure of the information. Users with more detailed and complete impressions of the data base searched faster. But the variety of different representations of the data base suggest it may be very difficult to create generic models as help to novice users

0.0128019815 = product of:
  0.051207926 = sum of:
    0.051207926 = weight(_text_:data in 6519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051207926 = score(doc=6519,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 6519, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6519)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of an online survey of in house users acessing California University's computerized union catalogue, the MELVYL library system, from public access terminals in the libraries of the California University at Santa Cruz (UCSC). The study included descriptive statistics on user status, affiliation, anticipated focus of system usage, judgement of ease of system use, and need for assistance. The transaction logs of respondents to the survey were analyzed and cross tabulated with demographic data on the same group of users. Particular attention was given to subject searching and to the dilemmas that confront users of a system in which heuristics are largely absent. Data was compared with similar data collected in a earlier study of user who accessed the MELVYL library system from remote sites