Search (50 results, page 1 of 3)

0.030892981 = product of:
  0.061785962 = sum of:
    0.048961036 = weight(_text_:reference in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048961036 = score(doc=1447,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2542731 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.012824926 = product of:
      0.025649851 = sum of:
        0.025649851 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025649851 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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

0.029653504 = product of:
  0.05930701 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.

Date

21. 4.2016 11:23:22

0.026500938 = product of:
  0.106003754 = sum of:
    0.106003754 = weight(_text_:reference in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.106003754 = score(doc=4466,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.5505174 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reference services have taken a central place in library and information services. They are also regarded as personalised services since in most cases a personal discussion takes place between a user and a reference librarian. Based on this, the librarian points to the sources that are considered to be most appropriate to meet the specific information need(s) of the user. Since the Web and digital libraries are meant for providing direct access to information sources and services without the intervention of human intermediaries, the pertinent question that appears is whether we need reference services in digital libraries, and, if so, how best to offer such services. Current digital libraries focus more on access to, and retrieval of, digital information, and hardly lay emphasis on the service aspects. This may have been caused by the narrower definitions of digital libraries formulated by digital library researchers. This paper looks at the current state of research in personalised information services in digital libraries. It first analyses some representative definitions of digital libraries in order to establish the need for personalised services. It then provides a brief overview of the various online reference and information services currently available on the Web. The paper also briefly reviews digital library research that specifically focuses on the personalisation of digital libraries and the provision of digital reference and information services. Finally, the paper proposes some new areas of research that may be undertaken to improve the provision of personalised information services in digital libraries.

0.01731034 = product of:
  0.06924136 = sum of:
    0.06924136 = weight(_text_:reference in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06924136 = score(doc=4153,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the communicative rituals of opening and closing manifested in e-mail-based Internet Public Library's (IPL's) online reference interaction. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 400 transcripts comprising user queries and responses by IPL librarians are examined. The opening and closing elements are identified to examine the way in which IPL librarians and users construct social space; that is, communicate their interpersonal and affective stances during the course of seeking and offering information. Findings - The results of data analysis show regular patterns of verbal and structural politeness indicators of opening and closing e-mail discourse. Linguistic elements such as greetings and acknowledgement are included in all the sampled transcripts; i.e. a 100 percent occurrence. Closing rituals have a 95 percent occurrence of linguistic features such as acknowledgement and invitation for follow-up. In contrast, there is a low occurrence of personalized openings through greeting by user name (26 percent). This lack of personalization also occurs in closings: personalized farewell through use of librarian name appears in only 8 percent of closings. Research limitations/implications - The employment of the various politeness tactics in opening and closing reflects the librarian's attention and concern to user's information needs, interests and wants. Such communicative competence narrows social distance and brings forth close socio-interpersonal space for interaction; this may, in turn, improve the overall quality of reference service. Research findings also indicate that more use of personal names may decrease the social distance between the librarian and user, resulting in increased solidarity and proximity. Originality/value - The study provides new insights into linguistic politeness and the functions of address forms such as personal names with a view toward developing effective opening and closing rituals that contribute to the enhancement of virtual reference services.

0.015300324 = product of:
  0.061201297 = sum of:
    0.061201297 = weight(_text_:reference in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061201297 = score(doc=672,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This chapter describes not so much what digital libraries are but what digital libraries with semantic support could and should be. It discusses the nature of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and how KOS can support digital library users. It projects a vision for designers to make and for users to demand better digital libraries. What is a digital library? The term \Digital Library" (DL) is used to refer to a range of systems, from digital object and metadata repositories, reference-linking systems, archives, and content management systems to complex systems that integrate advanced digital library services and support for research and practice communities. A DL may offer many technology-enabled functions and services that support users, both as information producers and as information users. Many of these functions appear in information systems that would not normally be considered digital libraries, making boundaries even more blurry. Instead of pursuing the hopeless quest of coming up with the definition of digital library, we present a framework that allows a clear and somewhat standardized description of any information system so that users can select the system(s) that best meet their requirements. Section 2 gives a broad outline for more detail see the DELOS DL Reference Model.

0.014171414 = product of:
  0.056685656 = sum of:
    0.056685656 = weight(_text_:master in 1937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056685656 = score(doc=1937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3116585 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.18188387 = fieldWeight in 1937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1937)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Zugl.: Krems, Univ., Master-Thesis, 2006

0.013145663 = product of:
  0.05258265 = sum of:
    0.05258265 = product of:
      0.1051653 = sum of:
        0.1051653 = weight(_text_:file in 5679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1051653 = score(doc=5679,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.4145461 = fieldWeight in 5679, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5679)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This presentation attempts to fit the subject contribution mechanism used in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging's SACO Program into the context of subject gateways. The discussion points to several subject gateways and concludes that there is no similarity between the two. Subject gateways are a mechanism for facilitating searching, while the SACO Program is a cooperative venture that provides a "gateway" for the development of LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Heading list) into an international authority file for subject headings.

0.01133574 = product of:
  0.04534296 = sum of:
    0.04534296 = product of:
      0.09068592 = sum of:
        0.09068592 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09068592 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, 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=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.01122181 = product of:
  0.04488724 = sum of:
    0.04488724 = product of:
      0.08977448 = sum of:
        0.08977448 = weight(_text_:22 in 6483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08977448 = score(doc=6483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6483, 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=6483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:43:01

0.009618694 = product of:
  0.038474776 = sum of:
    0.038474776 = product of:
      0.07694955 = sum of:
        0.07694955 = weight(_text_:22 in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07694955 = score(doc=4865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4865, 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=4865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:59

0.009618694 = product of:
  0.038474776 = sum of:
    0.038474776 = product of:
      0.07694955 = sum of:
        0.07694955 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07694955 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.009180195 = product of:
  0.03672078 = sum of:
    0.03672078 = weight(_text_:reference in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03672078 = score(doc=1159,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.19070482 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Theses: 1. Who should be addressed by digital libraries? How shall we measure whether we have reached the desired audience? Thesis: The primary audience for a digital library is neither the leading specialist in the respective field, nor the freshman, but the advanced student or young researcher and the "almost specialist". The primary topic of digitization projects should not be the absolute top range of the "treasures" of a collection, but those materials that we always have wanted to promote if they were just marginally more important. Whether we effectively serve them to the appropriate community of serious users can only be measured according to criteria that have yet to be developed. 2. The appropriate size of digital libraries and their access tools Thesis: Digital collections need a critical, minimal size to make their access worthwhile. In the end, users want to access information, not metadata or gimmicks. 3. The quality of digital objects Thesis: If digital library resources are to be integrated into the daily work of the research community, they must appear on the screen of the researcher in a quality that is useful in actual work. 4. The granularity / modularity of digital repositories Thesis: While digital libraries are self-contained bodies of information, they are not the basic unit that most users want to access. Users are, as a rule, more interested in the individual objects in the library and need a straightforward way to access them. 5. Digital collections as integrated reference systems Thesis: Traditional libraries support their collections with reference material. Digital collections need to find appropriate models to replicate this functionality. 6. Library and teaching Thesis: The use of multimedia in teaching is as much of a current buzzword as the creation of digital collections. It is obvious that they should be connected. A clear-cut separation of the two approaches is nevertheless necessary.

0.00865517 = product of:
  0.03462068 = sum of:
    0.03462068 = weight(_text_:reference in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03462068 = score(doc=2813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Das Projekt "KOBV-Informationsportal" In den vergangenen Jahren hat der Kooperative Bibliotheksverbund BerlinBrandenburg (KOBV) mit der KOBV-Suchmaschine eine Internet-Plattform mit einer offenen Architektur geschaffen. Auf dieser technischen Basis erweitert er kontinuierlich sein Dienstleistungsangebot, wobei die Prinzipien des KOBV - insbesondere Offenheit, Heterogenität und Dezentralität auf technischer und organisatorischer Ebene - gewahrt bleiben. Mitte 2001 hat die KOBV-Zentrale gemeinsam mit den regionalen Bibliotheken das zweite große Entwicklungsprojekt "KOBV-Informationsportal" gestartet. Zielsetzung war der Aufbau eines kooperativen regionalen Portals mit Einsatz von Linking-Mechanismen zur "nahtlosen" Navigation in freien und lizenzierten Dokumenten und mit Einsatz von Instrumenten zur dezentralen Authentifizierung und Autorisierung über das Internet. Im Dezember 2003 hat das "KOBV-Portal - Digitale Bibliothek Berlin-Brandenburg" planmäßig in einer ersten Ausbaustufe den Routinebetrieb aufgenommen. Das KOBV-Portal bietet in dieser Stufe den Nachweis über die in den großen Bibliotheken lizenzierten Ressourcen und elektronischen Zeitschriften, zudem die nahtlose Navigation mittels des Reference-LinkingWerkzeuges SFX zu verschiedenen Diensten wie Fernleihe, Subito und freien Volltexten im Internet sowie zu frei zugänglichen elektronischen Zeitschriften. Die mit der verteilten Authentifizierung und Autorisierung verbundene Zielsetzung konnte im Rahmen des Projektes erst zum Teil umgesetzt werden. Realisiert wurde die Remote-Authentifizierung, mit der sich ein Nutzer, der online eine Fernleih-Bestellung aufgeben möchte, über das Internet in seiner Heimatbibliothek authentifizieren kann. Des weiteren ist der Zugriff auf lizenzierte Bestände im Campus einer Hochschule mittels IP-Checking möglich. Als weiteren wesentlichen Bestandteil des KOBV-Portals hat die KOBVZentrale mit den Bibliotheken einen Workflow für ein Metadata-Sharing abgestimmt und für die Adaption und Normalisierung lokaler Metadaten aus lokalen Bibliothekssystemen und -Portalen den KOBV-Metadaten-AustauschParser (KMA-Parser) entwickelt. Darüber hinaus sollen Bibliotheken, deren Metadaten bislang lediglich in unstrukturierter Form vorliegen, in die Lage versetzt werden, strukturierte Metadaten anzulegen, zu liefern und nachzunutzen. Dazu hat die KOBV-Zentrale das mit einer Web-Katalogisierungsschnittstelle ausgestattete "Metadata-Tool" entwickelt, das im Herbst 2004 in Betrieb genommen wird. Die für das Metadata-Sharing entwickelten Komponenten und Module sollen den Bibliotheken die Mehrfacherfassung ersparen und ihnen die Möglichkeit der wechselseitigen Nachnutzung der Metadaten eröffnen.

0.008015579 = product of:
  0.032062314 = sum of:
    0.032062314 = product of:
      0.06412463 = sum of:
        0.06412463 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06412463 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, 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=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.0075732735 = product of:
  0.030293094 = sum of:
    0.030293094 = weight(_text_:reference in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030293094 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.15732343 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As digital libraries become a major source of information for many people, we need to know more about how people seek and retrieve information in digital environments. Quite commonly, users with a problem-at-hand and associated question-in-mind repeatedly search a literature for answers, and seek information in stages over extended periods from a variety of digital information resources. The process of repeatedly searching over time in relation to a specific, but possibly an evolving information problem (including changes or shifts in a variety of variables), is called the successive search phenomenon. The study outlined in this paper is currently investigating this new and little explored line of inquiry for information retrieval, Web searching, and digital libraries. The purpose of the research project is to investigate the nature, manifestations, and behavior of successive searching by users in digital environments, and to derive criteria for use in the design of information retrieval interfaces and systems supporting successive searching behavior. This study includes two related projects. The first project is based in the School of Library and Information Sciences at the University of North Texas and is funded by a National Science Foundation POWRE Grant <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/show?award=9753277>. The second project is based at the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield (UK) and is funded by a grant from the British Library <http://www.shef. ac.uk/~is/research/imrg/uncerty.html> Research and Innovation Center. The broad objectives of each project are to examine the nature and extent of successive search episodes in digital environments by real users over time. The specific aim of the current project is twofold: * To characterize progressive changes and shifts that occur in: user situational context; user information problem; uncertainty reduction; user cognitive styles; cognitive and affective states of the user, and consequently in their queries; and * To characterize related changes over time in the type and use of information resources and search strategies particularly related to given capabilities of IR systems, and IR search engines, and examine changes in users' relevance judgments and criteria, and characterize their differences. The study is an observational, longitudinal data collection in the U.S. and U.K. Three questionnaires are used to collect data: reference, client post search and searcher post search questionnaires. Each successive search episode with a search intermediary for textual materials on the DIALOG Information Service is audiotaped and search transaction logs are recorded. Quantitative analysis includes statistical analysis using Likert scale data from the questionnaires and log-linear analysis of sequential data. Qualitative methods include: content analysis, structuring taxonomies; and diagrams to describe shifts and transitions within and between each search episode. Outcomes of the study are the development of appropriate model(s) for IR interactions in successive search episodes and the derivation of a set of design criteria for interfaces and systems supporting successive searching.

0.0075732735 = product of:
  0.030293094 = sum of:
    0.030293094 = weight(_text_:reference in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030293094 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.15732343 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Internet would not be very useful if communication were limited to textual exchanges between speakers of English located in the United States. Rather, its value lies in its ability to enable people from multiple nations, speaking multiple languages, to employ multiple media in interacting with each other. While computer networks broke through national boundaries long ago, they remain much more effective for textual communication than for exchanges of sound, images, or mixed media -- and more effective for communication in English than for exchanges in most other languages, much less interactions involving multiple languages. Supporting searching and display in multiple languages is an increasingly important issue for all digital libraries accessible on the Internet. Even if a digital library contains materials in only one language, the content needs to be searchable and displayable on computers in countries speaking other languages. We need to exchange data between digital libraries, whether in a single language or in multiple languages. Data exchanges may be large batch updates or interactive hyperlinks. In any of these cases, character sets must be represented in a consistent manner if exchanges are to succeed. Issues of interoperability, portability, and data exchange related to multi-lingual character sets have received surprisingly little attention in the digital library community or in discussions of standards for information infrastructure, except in Europe. The landmark collection of papers on Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, for example, contains no discussion of multi-lingual issues except for a passing reference to the Unicode standard. The goal of this short essay is to draw attention to the multi-lingual issues involved in designing digital libraries accessible on the Internet. Many of the multi-lingual design issues parallel those of multi-media digital libraries, a topic more familiar to most readers of D-Lib Magazine. This essay draws examples from multi-media DLs to illustrate some of the urgent design challenges in creating a globally distributed network serving people who speak many languages other than English. First we introduce some general issues of medium, culture, and language, then discuss the design challenges in the transition from local to global systems, lastly addressing technical matters. The technical issues involve the choice of character sets to represent languages, similar to the choices made in representing images or sound. However, the scale of the language problem is far greater. Standards for multi-media representation are being adopted fairly rapidly, in parallel with the availability of multi-media content in electronic form. By contrast, we have hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of years worth of textual materials in hundreds of languages, created long before data encoding standards existed. Textual content from past and present is being encoded in language and application-specific representations that are difficult to exchange without losing data -- if they exchange at all. We illustrate the multi-language DL challenge with examples drawn from the research library community, which typically handles collections of materials in 400 or so languages. These are problems faced not only by developers of digital libraries, but by those who develop and manage any communication technology that crosses national or linguistic boundaries.

0.007511807 = product of:
  0.030047229 = sum of:
    0.030047229 = product of:
      0.060094457 = sum of:
        0.060094457 = weight(_text_:file in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060094457 = score(doc=1205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23688349 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Music websites are ubiquitous, and music downloads, such as MP3, are a major source of Web traffic. As the amount of musical content increases and the Web becomes an important mechanism for distributing music, we expect to see a rising demand for music search services. Many currently available music search engines rely on file names, song title, composer or performer as the indexing and retrieval mechanism. These systems do not make use of the musical content. We believe that a more natural, effective, and usable music-information retrieval (MIR) system should have audio input, where the user can query with musical content. We are developing a system called MusArt for audio-input MIR. With MusArt, as with other audio-input MIR systems, a user sings or plays a theme, hook, or riff from the desired piece of music. The system transcribes the query and searches for related themes in a database, returning the most similar themes, given some measure of similarity. We call this "retrieval by query." In this paper, we describe the architecture of MusArt. An important element of MusArt is metadata creation: we believe that it is essential to automatically abstract important musical elements, particularly themes. Theme extraction is performed by a subsystem called MME, which we describe later in this paper. Another important element of MusArt is its support for a variety of search engines, as we believe that MIR is too complex for a single approach to work for all queries. Currently, MusArt supports a dynamic time-warping search engine that has high recall, and a complementary stochastic search engine that searches over themes, emphasizing speed and relevancy. The stochastic search engine is discussed in this paper.

0.006412463 = product of:
  0.025649851 = sum of:
    0.025649851 = product of:
      0.051299702 = sum of:
        0.051299702 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051299702 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.006412463 = product of:
  0.025649851 = sum of:
    0.025649851 = product of:
      0.051299702 = sum of:
        0.051299702 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051299702 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.006412463 = product of:
  0.025649851 = sum of:
    0.025649851 = product of:
      0.051299702 = sum of:
        0.051299702 = weight(_text_:22 in 4875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051299702 = score(doc=4875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4875, 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=4875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:16