Search (460 results, page 23 of 23)

0.0045076776 = product of:
  0.013523032 = sum of:
    0.013523032 = product of:
      0.027046064 = sum of:
        0.027046064 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027046064 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, 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=2672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:40:38

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2384)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Online displays of bibliographic records in call number order can serve various functions. A literature search showed no papers or books discussing this topic directly. Various displays from online catalogues available via the Internet were examined, as were displays sent to the author by colleagues. A number of the displays were uninformative to the extent that the identification of works associated with call numbers was difficult or impossible without follow-up searching of the individual bibliographic records. Other displays provided information where further searching of the database would not be required for most purposes. Displays noted ranged from displays with call numbers alone, with no bibliographic information, to records including main entry, title, statement of responsibility, place, publisher, and date. Suggestions of useful data elements to be included in displays of bibliographic records in call number order are made for the following functions: shelflisting, cataloguing, catalogue maintenance, reference, public searches, acquisition and collection development, and inventory control. Recommendations are made that the following data elements should be present in call number displays: entire call number as a sequencing element; main entry; entire title proper, and the date. Concern is expressed that the call number filing arrangement be that followed in traditional shelflists, and a suggestion is made that possible consensus on the placement of the data elements within a display be considered in the future

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article describes the findings of a research project that tested a new subject-access design in an experimental online catalog that had a wide range of subject-searching capabilities and search trees to govern the system's selection of searching capabilities in response to user queries. Library users at 2 academic libraries searched this experimental catalog for topics of their own choosing, judges the usefulness of retrieved titles, and answered post-search questions about their searching experiences. Mixed results from a quantitative analysis (i.e., precision scores) were supplemented with the more conclusive results from a qualitative analysis (i.e., failure analysis). Overall, analyses demonstrated that the new subject-access design that featured search trees was more effective in selecting a subject-searching approach that would prooduce useful information for the subjects users seek than users would select on their own. The qualitative analysis was especially helpful in providing recommendations for improving specific subject-searching approaches to increase their effenciency, increase user perseverance, and encourage browsing. It also suggested enhancements to the new subject-searching design to enable systems to respond to the wide variety of user queries for subjects

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 1009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=1009,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1009, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1009)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: TYCKOSON, D.A.: Enhancing access to information: building catalogs for the future; TYCKOSON, D.A.: The twenty-first century limited: desinging catalogs for the next century; DWYER, J.: Bibliographic records enhancement: from the drawing board to the catalog screen; SYRACUSE, R.O. u. R.K. POYER: Enhancing access to the library's collections: a view from an academic health center library; STUDWELL, W.E.: Of eggs and baskets: getting more access out of LC Subject Headings in an online environment; STEPHENS, I.E.: Getting more out of call numbers: displaying holdings, locations and circulation status; MICCO, M.: The next generation of online public access catalogs: a new look at subject access using hypermedia; SLOAN, B.G.: Remote access: design implications for the online catalog; ENGEL, G.: User instruction for access to catalogs and database on the Internet; BARNES, S. u. J. McCUE: Linking library records to bibliographic databases: an analysis of common data elements in BIOSIS, Agricola and the OPAC; HARWOOD, R.: Adding a nonlibrary campus collection to the library database; CARTER, K., H. OLSEN u. S. AQUILA: Bulk loading of records for microform sets into the online catalogue; DYKEMAN, A. u. J. ZIMMERMAN: The Georgia Institute of Technology Electronic Library: issues to consider; MOLHOLT, P. u. K. FORSYTHE: Opening up information access through the electronic catalog

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=5584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on a model and patterns of use of a library catalog that can be accessed through the Internet. Three categories of users are identified. individuals who perform a search of the catalog, tourists who look only at opening pages of the library catalog's site, and Web spiders that come to the site to obtain pages for indexing the Web. A number of types of use activities are also identified, and can be grouped with the presearch phase (which takes place before any searching begins): the search phase, the display phase (in which users display the results of their search), and phases in which users make errors, ask the system for help or assistance, and take other actions. An empirical investigation of patterns of use of a university Web-based library catalog was conducted for 479 days. During that period, the characteristics of about 2.5 million sessions were recorded and analyzed, and usage trends were identified. Of the total, 62% of the sessions were for users who performed a search, 27% were from spiders, and 11% were for tourists. During the study period, the average search session lasted about 5 minutes when the study began and had increased to about 10 minutes 16 months later. An average search consisted of about 1.5 presearch actions lasting about 25 seconds, about 5.3 display actions, and 2.5 searches per session. The latter two categories are in the range of 35-37 seconds per session each. There were major differences in usage (number of searches, search time, number of display actions, and display time), depending upon the database accessed

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 separate but related projects to study the influence of spelling errors (misspellings), made by searchers, on the subject searching of online catalogues and to suggest ways of improving error detection systems to handle the errors that they detect. This involved the categorization of user queries for subjects that were extracted from the online catalogue transaction logs of 4 USA university libraries. The research questions considered: the prevalence of misspellings in user queries for subjects; and how users respond to online catalogues that detect possible spelling errors in their subject queries. Less than 6% of user queries that match the catalogue's controlled and free text terms were found to contain spelling errors. While the majority of users corrected misspelled query words, a sizable proportion made an action that was even more detrimental than the original misspelling. Concludes with 3 recommended improvements: online catalogues should be equipped with search trees to place the burden of selecting a subject the system instead of the user; systems should be equipped with automatic spelling checking routines that inform users of possibly misspelled words; and online catalogues should be enhanced with tools and techniques to distinguish between queries that fail due to misspellings and correction failures. Cautions that spelling is not a serious problem but can seriously hinder the most routine subject search

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 6526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=6526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 6526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6526)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Different users of a Web-based information system will have different goals and different ways of performing their work. This article explores the possibility that we can automatically detect usage patterns without demographic information about the individuals. First, a set of 47 variables was defined that can be used to characterize a user session. The values of these variables were computed for approximately 257,000 sessions. Second, principal component analysis was employed to reduce the dimensions of the original data set. Third, a twostage, hybrid clustering method was proposed to categorize sessions into groups. Finally, an external criteriabased test of cluster validity was performed to verify the validity of the resulting usage groups (clusters). The proposed methodology was demonstrated and tested for validity using two independent samples of user sessions drawn from the transaction logs of the University of California's MELVYL® on-line library catalog system (www.melvyl.ucop.edu). The results indicate that there were six distinct categories of use in the MELVYL system: knowledgeable and sophisticated use, unsophisticated use, highly interactive use with good search performance, known-item searching, help-intensive searching, and relatively unsuccessful use. Their characteristics were interpreted and compared qualitatively. The analysis shows that each group had distinct patterns of use of the system, which justifies the methodology employed in this study

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 4358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=4358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4358, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4358)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Today's information seekers have been conditioned by Web search engines to expect immediate gratification as the result of user-friendly Web experiences. In contrast, it is increasingly apparent that traditional library OPACs do not provide the same ease of use or access to information. National Bibliographic Agencies (NBAs) and libraries everywhere need to respond to this discrepancy by initiating measures to enrich their databases and bibliographic products with much more information than is currently captured in records for resources. At the same time, NBAs must address the need for a new generation of OPACs that offers significantly enhanced functionality, much of which can be based on standard features of Web search engines and online bookstores. In view of alternatives available to information seekers, these needs require immediate attention if NBAs and libraries are to retain the support of satisfied users into the 21 st century. This paper offers specific recommendations to assist them in identifying and implementing appropriate responses.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=5229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Special Sections on Accessibility and OPAC"

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 3286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=3286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3286)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Das "Statement of Principles" - allgemein bekannt als "Paris Principles" - wurde 1961 von der International Conference on Cataloguing Principles verabschiedet. Sein Ziel, als Basis für die internationale Standardisierung in der Katalogisierung zu dienen, ist sicherlich erreicht worden: Die meisten Katalogisierungsregelwerke, die in der Folgezeit weltweit entwickelt wurden, folgten den Prinzipien ganz oder wenigstens in hohem Maß. Mehr als vierzig Jahre später ist das Bedürfnis nach gemeinsamen internationalen Katalogisierungsregeln gewachsen, weil Katalogisierer und Benutzer weltweit OPACs (Online Public Access Catalogues = Online-Benutzerkataloge) nutzen. An der Schwelle des 21. Jahrhunderts hat die IFLA einen Vorstoß unternommen, neue Prinzipien zu erarbeiten, die auf Online-Bibliothekskataloge und auch darüber hinaus anwendbar sind. Das oberste Prinzip ist der Komfort des Katalognutzers. Diese Erklärung ersetzt die "Paris Principles" und weitet den Geltungsbereich von rein textlichen Werken auf alle Materialarten aus und von der Bestimmung und Form einer Eintragung auf alle Aspekte von bibliografischen Daten und Normdaten, die in Bibliothekskatalogen genutzt werden. Sie umfasst nicht nur Prinzipien und Ziele (d. h. Funktionen des Katalogs), sondern auch Regelungen, die international in Katalogisierungsregelwerken enthalten sein sollten, und gibt Anleitung für Suchfunktionen. Die Prinzipien bauen auf den großen Katalogtraditionen der Welt sowie auf dem konzeptionellen Modell der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) der IFLA auf.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

While support for subject searching has been traditionally advocated for in library catalogs, often in the form of a catalog objective to find everything that a library has on a certain topic, research has shown that subject access has not been satisfactory. Many existing online catalogs and discovery services do not seem to make good use of the intellectual effort invested into assigning controlled subject index terms and classes. For example, few support hierarchical browsing of classification schemes and other controlled vocabularies with hierarchical structures, few provide end-user-friendly options to choose a more specific concept to increase precision, a broader concept or related concepts to increase recall, to disambiguate homonyms, or to find which term is best used to name a concept. Optimum subject access in library catalogs and discovery services is analyzed from the perspective of earlier research as well as contemporary conceptual models and cataloguing codes. Eighteen proposed features of what this should entail in practice are drawn. In an exploratory qualitative study, the three most common discovery services used in Swedish academic libraries are analyzed against these features. In line with previous research, subject access in contemporary interfaces is demonstrated to less than optimal. This is in spite of the fact that individual collections have been indexed with controlled vocabularies and a significant number of controlled vocabularies have been mapped to each other and are available in interoperable standards. Strategic action is proposed to build research-informed (inter)national standards and guidelines.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=5882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Due to the advances in information retrieval in the past decades, search engines have become extremely efficient at acquiring useful sources in response to a user's query. However, for more prolonged and complex information seeking tasks, these search engines are not as well suited. During complex information seeking tasks, various stages may occur, which imply varying support needs for users. However, the implications of theoretical information seeking models for concrete search user interfaces (SUI) design are unclear, both at the level of the individual features and of the whole interface. Guidelines and design patterns for concrete SUIs, on the other hand, provide recommendations for feature design, but these are separated from their role in the information seeking process. This chapter addresses the question of how to design SUIs with enhanced support for the macro-level process, first by reviewing previous research. Subsequently, we outline a framework for complex task support, which explicitly connects the temporal development of complex tasks with different levels of support by SUI features. This is followed by a discussion of concrete system examples which include elements of the three dimensions of our framework in an exploratory search and sensemaking context. Moreover, we discuss the connection of navigation with the search-oriented framework. In our final discussion and conclusion, we provide recommendations for designing more holistic SUIs which potentially evolve along with a user's information seeking process.

0.0044007855 = product of:
  0.013202356 = sum of:
    0.013202356 = weight(_text_:on in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013202356 = score(doc=1172,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.120280504 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0039442177 = product of:
  0.011832653 = sum of:
    0.011832653 = product of:
      0.023665305 = sum of:
        0.023665305 = weight(_text_:22 in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023665305 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3353, 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=3353)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 58(2005) H.1, S.22-37

0.0035563714 = product of:
  0.010669114 = sum of:
    0.010669114 = weight(_text_:on in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010669114 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper presents findings based on user feedback and opinion of online public access catalogues as tools for finding, identifying, and selecting bibliographic materials in a public library setting. Participants spoke their thoughts aloud while conducting known-item searches. The findings describe an iterative process of action, observation, identification, and emotion.

0.0035563714 = product of:
  0.010669114 = sum of:
    0.010669114 = weight(_text_:on in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010669114 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.0035563714 = product of:
  0.010669114 = sum of:
    0.010669114 = weight(_text_:on in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010669114 = score(doc=1339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Will there be a library catalogue in the future and, if so, what will it look like? In the last 25 years, the library catalogue has undergone an evolution, from card catalogues to OPACs, discovery systems and even linked data applications making library bibliographic data accessible on the web. At the same time, users expectations of what catalogues will be able to offer in the way of discovery have never been higher. This groundbreaking edited collection brings together some of the foremost international cataloguing practitioners and thought leaders, including Lorcan Dempsey, Emmanuelle Bermès, Marshall Breeding and Karen Calhoun, to provide an overview of the current state of the art of the library catalogue and look ahead to see what the library catalogue might become. Practical projects and cutting edge concepts are showcased in discussions of linked data and the Semantic Web, user expectations and needs, bibliographic control, the FRBRization of the catalogue, innovations in search and retrieval, next-generation discovery products and mobile catalogues.

0.0033807578 = product of:
  0.010142273 = sum of:
    0.010142273 = product of:
      0.020284547 = sum of:
        0.020284547 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020284547 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22