Search (124 results, page 1 of 7)

0.12597175 = product of:
  0.18895762 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=740,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=740)
    0.045500536 = product of:
      0.09100107 = sum of:
        0.09100107 = weight(_text_:indexing in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09100107 = score(doc=740,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.47848347 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=740)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The proliferation of online public access catalogs (OPACs) requires some systematic rationale for the comparative evaluation of their designs. Considered as an indexing application, the OPAC can be analyzed by three features: the variety of bibliographic data processed, the kinds of indexes constructed, and the ways in which the indexes are searched. No one configuration appiles to every library research project with equal efficacy or likelihood of satisfying queries. However, the rationale proposed can compare and evaluate alternative library computer catalogs in term of the library's understanding of the relationship between the library's collections and their use

0.08449805 = product of:
  0.25349414 = sum of:
    0.25349414 = sum of:
      0.15925187 = weight(_text_:indexing in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15925187 = score(doc=211,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.8373461 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.09424227 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09424227 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Trends in subject indexing: subject indexing and online catalogues

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.10, S.326-330

0.0783509 = product of:
  0.11752635 = sum of:
    0.10143948 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10143948 = score(doc=2547,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.35721707 = fieldWeight in 2547, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2547)
    0.016086869 = product of:
      0.032173738 = sum of:
        0.032173738 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032173738 = score(doc=2547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.16916946 = fieldWeight in 2547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The discovery service (a search engine and service called WILBERT) used at our library at the Technical University of Applied Sciences Wildau (TUAS Wildau) is comprised of more than 8 million items. If we were to record all licensed publications in this tool to a higher level of articles, including their bibliographic records and full texts, we would have a holding estimated at a hundred million documents. A lot of features, such as ranking, autocompletion, multi-faceted classification, refining opportunities reduce the number of hits. However, it is not enough to give intuitive support for a systematic overview of topics related to documents in the library. John Naisbitt once said: "We are drowning in information, but starving for knowledge." This quote is still very true today. Two years ago, we started to develop micro thesauri for MINT topics in order to develop an advanced indexing of the library stock. We use iQvoc as a vocabulary management system to create the thesaurus. It provides an easy-to-use browser interface that builds a SKOS thesaurus in the background. The purpose of this is to integrate the thesauri in WILBERT in order to offer a better subject-related search. This approach especially supports first-year students by giving them the possibility to browse through a hierarchical alignment of a subject, for instance, logistics or computer science, and thereby discover how the terms are related. It also supports the students with an insight into established abbreviations and alternative labels. Students at the TUAS Wildau were involved in the developmental process of the software regarding the interface and functionality of iQvoc. The first steps have been taken and involve the inclusion of 3000 terms in our discovery tool WILBERT.

0.059773788 = product of:
  0.17932136 = sum of:
    0.17932136 = weight(_text_:systematic in 7908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17932136 = score(doc=7908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.6314765 = fieldWeight in 7908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7908)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Contribution to an issue devoted to multimedia libraries (mediathèques). Describes the preparatory and systematic research into online public access catalogues between Oct 91 and March 92, by a team working within the Parinfo project (Programme d'aidé à la récherche en information)

0.04781903 = product of:
  0.14345708 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=3568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Compares and evaluates the functional capabilities and interface characteristics of OPACs from the user oriented perspective, using a systematic framework. OPACs of OhioLINK and its 16 member libraries are the object of the investigation. The interfaces used 6 system software but showed a variety of features in access to OPACs, operational control, access points, search formulation control, and user assistance. Interface design alternatives are identified and qualitatively analyzed

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 7917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=7917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 7917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7917)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Adapted from a paper delivered at the Art Libraries Society of North America Annual Conference, Jan.93. In many libraries the OPAC has become the multifile OPAC, a new environment with greatly expanded access options and increased complexity of access procedures. Describes a strategy devised by the University of Nevada, Las vegas Library, for developing an instruction programme in the multifile OPAC environment in a systematic manageable ways. Discusses the 4 areas which emerged as basic to an instruction programme for multifile OPACs: selection criteria for the various databases; access procedures; approaches useful in searching new systems; and search concepts relevant across databases

0.029886894 = product of:
  0.08966068 = sum of:
    0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08966068 = score(doc=443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is the second part of a two-part article that examines 25 years of published research findings on end-user searching of online information retrieval (IR) systems. In Part 1, it was learned that people enter a few short search statements into online IR systems. Their searches do not resemble the systematic approach of expert searchers who use the full range of IR-system functionality. Part 2 picks up the discussion of research findings about end-user searching in the context of current information retrieval models. These models demonstrate that information retrieval is a complex event, involving changes in cognition, feelings, and/or events during the information seeking process. The author challenges IR researchers to design new studies of end-user searching, collecting data not only on system-feature use, but on multiple search sessions and controlling for variables such as domain knowledge expertise and expert system knowledge. Because future IR systems designers are likely to improve the functionality of online IR systems in response to answers to the new research questions posed here, the author concludes with advice to these designers about retaining the simplicity of online IR system interfaces.

0.026541978 = product of:
  0.079625934 = sum of:
    0.079625934 = product of:
      0.15925187 = sum of:
        0.15925187 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15925187 = score(doc=2982,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.8373461 = fieldWeight in 2982, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2982)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Challenges in indexing electronic text and images. Ed.: R. Fidel et al

0.02144916 = product of:
  0.064347476 = sum of:
    0.064347476 = product of:
      0.12869495 = sum of:
        0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12869495 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 1491, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.018575516 = product of:
  0.055726547 = sum of:
    0.055726547 = product of:
      0.11145309 = sum of:
        0.11145309 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11145309 = score(doc=5161,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 5161, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Conceptual considerations on possible synergies between hypertext and indexing languages' research. The existence of a common conceptual and theoretical background encourages and facilitates cooperation. It is concluded that the conjunction of the almost biological flexibility of the hypertext and the logical and conceptual consistency of indexing languages is a promise of better and more effective information management systems in the future

0.018575516 = product of:
  0.055726547 = sum of:
    0.055726547 = product of:
      0.11145309 = sum of:
        0.11145309 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11145309 = score(doc=4438,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 4438, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines the advantages and disadvantages of precoordinated, postcoordinated and automatic indexing with regard to existing information storage systems, such as card catalogues, OPACs, CR-ROM databases, and online databases. Presents a general model of document content representation and concludes that the library profession needs to address the development of databank design models, relevance feedback methods and automatic indexing assessment methods, to make indexing more effective

0.01795091 = product of:
  0.053852726 = sum of:
    0.053852726 = product of:
      0.10770545 = sum of:
        0.10770545 = weight(_text_:22 in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10770545 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7403, 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=7403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.21-31

0.01795091 = product of:
  0.053852726 = sum of:
    0.053852726 = product of:
      0.10770545 = sum of:
        0.10770545 = weight(_text_:22 in 7483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10770545 = score(doc=7483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7483, 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=7483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.133-142

0.01723753 = product of:
  0.051712587 = sum of:
    0.051712587 = sum of:
      0.02815202 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02815202 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.14802328 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
      0.023560567 = weight(_text_:22 in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023560567 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Pauline Atherton Cochrane has been contributing to library and information science for fifty years. Think of it-from mid-century to the millennium, from ENIAC (practically) to Internet 11 (almost here). What a time to be in our field! Her work an indexing, subject access, and the user-oriented approach had immediate and sustained impact, and she continues to be one of our most heavily cited authors (see, JASIS, 49[4], 327-55) and most beloved personages. This introduction includes a few words about my own experiences with Pauline as well as a short summary of the contributions that make up this tribute. A review of the curriculum vita provided at the end of this publication Shows that Pauline Cochrane has been involved in a wide variety of work. As Marcia Bates points out in her note (See below), Pauline was (and is) a role model, but I will always think of her as simply the best teacher 1 ever had. In 1997, I entered the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science as a returning mid-life student; my previous doctorate had not led to a full-time job and I was re-tooling. I was not sure what 1 would find in library school, and the introductory course attended by more than 100 students from widely varied backgrounds had not yet convinced me I was in the right place. Then, one day, Pauline gave a guest lecture an the digital library in my introductory class. I still remember it. She put up some notes-a few words clustered an the blackboard with some circles and directional arrows-and then she gave a free, seemingly extemporaneous, but riveting narrative. She set out a vision for ideal information exchange in the digital environment but noted a host of practical concerns, issues, and potential problems that required (demanded!) continued human intervention. The lecture brought that class and the entire semester's work into focus; it created tremendous excitement for the future of librarianship. 1 saw that librarians and libraries would play an active role. I was in the right place.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.016418591 = product of:
  0.049255773 = sum of:
    0.049255773 = product of:
      0.09851155 = sum of:
        0.09851155 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09851155 = score(doc=4541,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.51797354 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to highlight limits to the dominant model of social inclusion under which UK public libraries operate, to analyse how and to what extent processes of socio-cultural exclusion emerge in the subject representation and discoverability of "non-dominant" resources in public library OPACs, and to consider folksonomy as a solution to any issues raised. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first develops a critique of the dominant model of "inclusion" within UK public libraries, drawing on feminist and critical theories of identity. It then considers how this critique overlaps with and offers fresh insights into major debates within subject indexing, and develops a theoretical rationale for considering the potential of folksonomy to intervene in more inclusive subject-indexing design. A user-based critical interpretive methodology which understands OPACs as texts open to multiple interpretations is developed, and a comparative reading of standard OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy is undertaken to evaluate the discoverability and subject representation of LGBTQ and ethnic minority resources. Findings - LibraryThing folksonomy offers benefits over LCSH subject indexing in the discoverability and representation of LGBTQ resources. However, the folksonomy is dominated by US taggers, and this impacts on the tagging of ethnic minority resources. Folksonomy, like traditional indexing, is found to contain its own biases in worldview and subject representation. Originality/value - The importance of subject indexing in developing inclusive library services is highlighted and a new method for evaluating OPACs is developed.

0.016418591 = product of:
  0.049255773 = sum of:
    0.049255773 = product of:
      0.09851155 = sum of:
        0.09851155 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09851155 = score(doc=4307,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.51797354 = fieldWeight in 4307, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4307)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The construction and updating of indexing languages depend on the organization of their hierarchical structures in order to determine the classification of related terms and, above all, to allow a constant updating of vocabulary, a condition for knowledge evolution. The elaboration of an indexing language for online catalogs of libraries' networks is important considering the diversity and specificity of knowledge areas. From this perspective, the present paper reports on the work of a team of catalogers and researchers engaged in the construction of a hierarchical structure of an indexing language for an online catalog of a university library's network. The work on hierarchical structures began by defining the categories and subcategories that form the indexing language macrostructure by using the parameters of the Library of Congress Subject Headings , the National Library Terminology and the Vocabulary of the University of São Paulo Library's system. Throughout the stages of the elaboration process of the macrostructure, difficulties and improvements were observed and discussed. The results enabled the assessment of the hierarchical structures of the languages used in the organization of the superordinate and subordinate terms, which has contributed to the systematization of operational procedures contained in an indexing language manual for online catalogs of libraries.

0.016253578 = product of:
  0.04876073 = sum of:
    0.04876073 = product of:
      0.09752146 = sum of:
        0.09752146 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09752146 = score(doc=1053,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Entählt u.a. die Beiträge: CLEVERDON, C.: Optimizing convenient online access to bibliographic databases; SALTON, G.: Automatic indexing and abstracting; HARTER, S.P.: Statistical approaches to automatic indexing; WALKER, S.: Improving subject access painlessly: recent work on the OKAPI online catalogue projects; SPARCK JONES, K.: A statistical interpretation of term specifity and its application in retrieval; CROFT, W.B. u. D.J. HARPER: Using probabilistic model of document retrieval without relevance information; BERSTEIN, L. u. R.E. WILLIAMSON: Testing of a natural language retrieval system for a full text knowledge base; FRAKES, W.B.: Term conflation for information retrieval; PORTER, M. u. V. GALPIN: Relevance feedback in a public access catalogue for a research library: MUSCAT at the Scott Polar Institute; SALTON, G. u. M.J. McGILL: The SMART and SIRE experimental retrieval systems; BRZOZOWSKI, J.P. MASQUERADE: searching full text of abstracts using automatic indexing; DOSZKOCS, T.E.: CITE NLM: Natural-language searching in an online catalog

0.016253578 = product of:
  0.04876073 = sum of:
    0.04876073 = product of:
      0.09752146 = sum of:
        0.09752146 = weight(_text_:indexing in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09752146 = score(doc=367,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study of subject access to UK academic library catalogues was based on a questionnaires end out during Summer 1991. 86 out of a possible 110 questionnaires were returned. All universities and polytechniques now have OPACs which are progressing well towards comprehensive bibliographical coverage of their libraries' stocks. The MARC format is now widely used. Subject access strategies are usually based on either Library of Congress Subject Headings or inhouse indexing systems but almost half the OPACs studies have no separate subject searching option based on subject indexing is expensive and future subject indexing strategies are best based on pre-existing controlled vocabularies. Strategies authority control is essential. A limited range of software strategies is recommended including the need to limit search results

0.016086869 = product of:
  0.048260607 = sum of:
    0.048260607 = product of:
      0.09652121 = sum of:
        0.09652121 = weight(_text_:indexing in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09652121 = score(doc=131,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.01586651 = product of:
  0.04759953 = sum of:
    0.04759953 = product of:
      0.09519906 = sum of:
        0.09519906 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09519906 = score(doc=4368,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4368, 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=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:36:10
22. 1.2000 19:41:58