Search (76 results, page 1 of 4)

0.06114906 = product of:
  0.36689436 = sum of:
    0.36689436 = weight(_text_:me in 6474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36689436 = score(doc=6474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32644376 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        1.1239129 = fieldWeight in 6474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6474)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.05616407 = product of:
  0.33698443 = sum of:
    0.33698443 = weight(_text_:mor in 2222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.33698443 = score(doc=2222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.41386795 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.211981 = idf(docFreq=11, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.81423175 = fieldWeight in 2222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.211981 = idf(docFreq=11, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2222)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.03767604 = product of:
  0.11302812 = sum of:
    0.09172359 = weight(_text_:me in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09172359 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32644376 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.28097823 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
    0.021304525 = weight(_text_:22 in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021304525 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = 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(2/6)

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

0.016232021 = product of:
  0.09739212 = sum of:
    0.09739212 = weight(_text_:22 in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09739212 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.016232021 = product of:
  0.09739212 = sum of:
    0.09739212 = weight(_text_:22 in 7483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09739212 = score(doc=7483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.015287265 = product of:
  0.09172359 = sum of:
    0.09172359 = weight(_text_:me in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09172359 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32644376 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.28097823 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

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

0.014347213 = product of:
  0.08608328 = sum of:
    0.08608328 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08608328 = score(doc=4368,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

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

0.014203018 = product of:
  0.0852181 = sum of:
    0.0852181 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0852181 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3628, 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=3628)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Bulletin des bibliothèques de France. 34(1989) no.1, S.22-47

0.014203018 = product of:
  0.0852181 = sum of:
    0.0852181 = weight(_text_:22 in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0852181 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5575, 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=5575)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Eine Replik zu Auer: OPAC und Zeichensatz (Mitteilungen der VÖB 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22)

0.014203018 = product of:
  0.0852181 = sum of:
    0.0852181 = weight(_text_:22 in 7584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0852181 = score(doc=7584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7584, 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=7584)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekare. 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22

0.014203018 = product of:
  0.0852181 = sum of:
    0.0852181 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0852181 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.014203018 = product of:
  0.0852181 = sum of:
    0.0852181 = weight(_text_:22 in 4513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0852181 = score(doc=4513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4513, 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=4513)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

23. 3.2000 15:22:58

0.01310337 = product of:
  0.07862022 = sum of:
    0.07862022 = weight(_text_:me in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07862022 = score(doc=1558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32644376 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.24083847 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

"MOST INTEGRATED library systems, as they are currently configured and used, should be removed from public view. Before I say why, let me be clean that I think the integrated library system serves a very important, albeit limited, role. An integrated library system should serve as a key piece of the infrastructure of a library, handling such tasks as ma terials acquisition, cataloging (including holdings, of course), and circulation. The integrated library system should be a complete and accurate recording of a local library's holdings. It should not be presented to users as the primary system for locating information. It fails badly at that important job. - Lack of content- The central problem of almost any library catalog system is that it typically includes only information about the books and journals held by a parficular library. Most do not provide access to joumal article indexes, web search engines, or even selective web directories like the Librarians' Index to the Internet. If they do offen such access, it is only via links to these services. The library catalog is far from onestop shopping for information. Although we acknowledge that fact to each other, we still treat it as if it were the best place in the universe to begin a search. Most of us give the catalog a place of great prominente an our web pages. But Information for each book is limited to the author, title, and a few subject headings. Seldom can book reviews, jacket summaries, recommendations, or tables of contents be found-or anything at all to help users determine if they want the material. - Lack of coverage - Most catalogs do not allow patrons to discover even all the books that are available to them. If you're lucky, your catalog may cover the collections of those libraries with which you have close ties-such as a regional network. But that leaves out all those items that could be requested via interlibrary loan. As Steve Coffman pointed out in his "Building Earth's Largest Library" article, we must show our users the universe that is open to them, highlight the items most accessible, and provide an estimate of how long it would take to obtain other items. - Inability to increase coverage - Despite some well-meaning attempts to smash everything of interest into the library catalog, the fact remains that most integrated library systems expect MARC records and MARC records only. This means that whatever we want to put into the catalog must be described using MARC and AACR2 (see "Marc Must Die," LJ 10/15/02, p. 26ff.). This is a barrier to dramatically increasing the scope of a catalog system, even if we decided to do it. How would you, for example, use the Open Archives Initiative Harvesting Protocol to crawl the bibliographic records of remote repositories and make them searchable within your library catalog? It can't be dope, and it shouldn't. The library catalog should be a record of a given library's holdings. Period.

0.012174014 = product of:
  0.073044084 = sum of:
    0.073044084 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073044084 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.012174014 = product of:
  0.073044084 = sum of:
    0.073044084 = weight(_text_:22 in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073044084 = score(doc=4106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.010145012 = product of:
  0.060870074 = sum of:
    0.060870074 = weight(_text_:22 in 6437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060870074 = score(doc=6437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6437, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6437)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.2, S.23-26

0.010145012 = product of:
  0.060870074 = sum of:
    0.060870074 = weight(_text_:22 in 1942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060870074 = score(doc=1942,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1942, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1942)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

16. 8.1998 11:22:08

0.008116011 = product of:
  0.04869606 = sum of:
    0.04869606 = weight(_text_:22 in 3098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04869606 = score(doc=3098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3098, 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=3098)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Canadian journal of information science. 16(1991) no.4, S.2-22

0.008116011 = product of:
  0.04869606 = sum of:
    0.04869606 = weight(_text_:22 in 3860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04869606 = score(doc=3860,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3860, 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=3860)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

OCLC micro. 7(1991) no.6, S.19-22

0.008116011 = product of:
  0.04869606 = sum of:
    0.04869606 = weight(_text_:22 in 8477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04869606 = score(doc=8477,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15732719 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04492714 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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