Search (76 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.03 
    0.034337863 = product of:
  0.10301359 = sum of:
    0.06711562 = weight(_text_:applications in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06711562 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38913056 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014666359 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.021231614 = product of:
      0.042463228 = sum of:
        0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042463228 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.03 
    0.029248154 = product of:
  0.08774446 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=5365,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.049563963 = weight(_text_:systems in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049563963 = score(doc=5365,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  3. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.02 
    0.024892237 = product of:
  0.07467671 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=256,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
    0.021231614 = product of:
      0.042463228 = sum of:
        0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042463228 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.02 
    0.024892237 = product of:
  0.07467671 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=266,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.021231614 = product of:
      0.042463228 = sum of:
        0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042463228 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  5. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.02 
    0.024254365 = product of:
  0.07276309 = sum of:
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=101,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.034687545 = weight(_text_:systems in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034687545 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.022519529 = product of:
      0.045039058 = sum of:
        0.045039058 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045039058 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
  6. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.02 
    0.024038564 = product of:
  0.07211569 = sum of:
    0.04745791 = weight(_text_:applications in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04745791 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27515686 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.01404197 = weight(_text_:of in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01404197 = score(doc=2666,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.010615807 = product of:
      0.021231614 = sum of:
        0.021231614 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021231614 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  7. Oberhauser, O.: Card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) : an international survey (2003) 0.02 
    0.019342372 = product of:
  0.08704068 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=4179,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
    0.06743785 = weight(_text_:software in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06743785 = score(doc=4179,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.43390724 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This paper surveys card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs) - online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards and more or less sophisticated mechanisms for browsing or searching. Solutions of this kind have been implemented by a number of libraries in various countries since the mid-1990s, mainly as inexpensive altematives to a full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. The article presents a Web page dedicated to CIPACs, identifies and describes four main categories of interface software for such catalogues, and provides a comparative overview of 50 CIPACs in 11 countries, looking at aspects such as geographical distribution, growth and size, software, number of catalogues, processing and index creation, navigation, image formats, and other features.
  8. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs and canons : towards an epistemology of the work (2000) 0.02 
    0.017597292 = product of:
  0.07918781 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=134,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
    0.05844645 = product of:
      0.1168929 = sum of:
        0.1168929 = weight(_text_:packages in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1168929 = score(doc=134,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2706874 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9093957 = idf(docFreq=119, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.43183723 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.9093957 = idf(docFreq=119, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Works and items form documentary entities-packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. As such, works demonstrate the characteristics of signs and symbols. Further, works may have membership in a canon. A taxonomic definition of the work is presented, which encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities. Works and items are joined variously to form documentary entities--packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. A work may have many texts, and may appear in many documents and even in many documentary forms. Marco and Navarro (1993) have suggested that epistemological analysis of the paradigms of knowledge are essential for the design and implementation of cognitive strategies to guide documentary analysis. Such is the case with the understanding of the work component of the documentary entity. Marco and Navarro also assert the usefulness of taxonomy as a key element of the epistemological analysis of paradigms. Works have been variously defined in the literature of information science, knowledge organization, linguistics, musicology, and literary criticism, among others. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. In this paper a taxonomic definition of the work is presented. This definition encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities
    Source
    Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al
  9. Voss, J.: LibraryThing : Web 2.0 für Literaturfreunde und Bibliotheken (2007) 0.02 
    0.015787553 = product of:
  0.047362655 = sum of:
    0.002646133 = weight(_text_:of in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002646133 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.043193102 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
    0.038081642 = weight(_text_:software in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038081642 = score(doc=1847,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24502413 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
    0.0066348794 = product of:
      0.013269759 = sum of:
        0.013269759 = weight(_text_:22 in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013269759 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    LibraryThing ist eine zur Klasse der Sozialen Software gehörende Webanwendung, in der Benutzer gemeinsam Bücher verwalten und miteinander in Kontakt treten können. Die Webseite wurde Ende August 2005 veröffentlicht und verzeichnet inzwischen (Juli 2007) über 235.000 Benutzer und 16 Millionen verschiedene Bücher. Jeder Nutzer verfügt über eine eigene Sammlung, die in LibraryThing als "Bibliotheken" oder "Katalog" bezeichnet wird. Die Katalogisierung geschieht in eine gemeinsame Datenbank, die von allen Nutzern direkt bearbeitet werden kann. Da es sich um eine reine Webanwendung handelt, muss zur Nutzung keine weitere Software installiert werden. Die Nutzung ist für bis zu 200 Medien kostenlos, eine jährliche Mitgliedschaft kostet 10 $ und eine lebenslange Mitgliedschaft 25 $. Bibliotheken und andere nichtkommerzielle Einrichtungen zahlen 15 $ pro Jahr. Dieses Preismodell hat sich auch nicht geändert, nachdem 40% des Unternehmens im Mai 2006 vom Gebrauchtbuchhändler AbeBooks übernommen wurden. Die Mehrheit hält weiterhin der Gründer Tim Spalding, der die ursprünglich als privates Projekt begonnene Seite mit inzwischen zwei weiteren Entwicklern und einer Bibliothekarin kontinuierlich weiterentwickelt.
    Content
    "Vom Nutzer zur Community Wie bei anderen Formen Sozialer Software beruht die Popularität von LibraryThing zu einem großen Teil auf den Interaktionsmöglichkeiten, durch die Nutzer miteinander in Kontakt treten und zusammenarbeiten. Neben einem allgemeinen Forum und Diskussionen zu konkreten Büchern, können sich Nutzer zu Gruppen zusammenschließen, beispielsweise die Comic-Liebhaber in der Gruppe Comics' und die deutschsprachigen LibraryThing-Nutzer in der Gruppe German Library Thingers. Per RSS können Nachrichten zu neuen Teilnehmern, Gruppen und Büchern aus Sammlungen von Gruppenmitgliedern abonniert werden. Jeder Benutzer verfügt über eine Profilseite, auf der er sich anderen Nutzern vorstellen kann und wo diese ihm Nachrichten hinterlassen können. Zu den Einträgen einzelner Nutzer, Werke, Bücher und Autoren wird jeweils angezeigt, welche Nutzer über die gleichen Bücher in ihrer Sammlung verfügen - so bringt LibraryThing Menschen zusammen, die sich für die gleichen Bücher interessieren. Jeder Nutzer kann zudem Bücher auf einer Skala von null bis fünf Sternen bewerten und Rezensionen einstellen. Erschließung leichtgemacht Nutzer können in LibraryThing bereits vorhandene Bücher mit einem Klick in ihre eigene Sammlung aufnehmen oder wieder entfernen. Das so kopierte Katalogisat können sie dann beliebig bearbeiten. Die Bearbeitung erfolgt nach dem Wiki-Prinzip direkt im Webbrowser. Bei der Anzeige einzelner Bücher und Werke werden die verschiedenen Metadaten dann zusammengefasst angezeigt. Andere Inhalte, wie die Autorenseiten (vergleichbar mit Personen-Normdatensätzen), können von allen Nutzern verändert werden. Eine wesentliche Rolle bei der Erschließung spielen freie Schlagwörter (Tags), aber auch DDC-Nummern lassen sich eintragen und werden beim Import aus Bibliothekskatalogen übernommen. Mit knapp 15 Feldern (Tags, Rezension, Bewertung, Titel, Autor, Weitere Autoren, Datum, ISBN, LoC-Signatur, DDC-Nummern, bibliographische Daten, Zusammenfassung, Kommentar und bis zu drei Sprachen) ist die Erschließung noch überschaubar und wird vor allem den Bedürfnissen der Nutzer gerecht.
    Beispiel für die Anwendung von LibraryThing for Libraries im Katalog des Waterford Institute of Technology (): Zu einer ISBN werden auf Basis der in LibraryThing gesammelten Daten andere Auflagen und Übersetzungen, ähnliche Bücher und Tags eingeblendet. Soziale Software lebt vom Mitmachen Vieles spricht dafür, dass LibraryThing auf dem besten Weg ist, sich zu einem der wichtigsten Web 2.0-Dienste für die Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken zu entwickeln. Wie schon bei Wikipedia gibt es allerdings noch viel zu oft Berührungsängste und die Vorstellung, dass sich diese Dienste erst durch Hilfe von Außen in der eigenen Einrichtung einführen ließen. Soziale Software lebt jedoch von der Zusammenarbeit und dem freien Austausch von Gedanken und Informationen. Deshalb hilft nur eins: Ausprobieren und Mitmachen. Ebenso wie Wikipedia schwer zu beurteilen ist, ohne selbst mit anderen Wikipedianern einen Artikel erstellt und diskutiert zu haben, erschließt sich LibraryThing erst vollständig durch eine eigene dort angelegte Büchersammlung. Zum Kennenlernen reicht der kostenlose Zugang und mit 15 $ Jahresgebühr können auch Bibliotheken problemlos bis zu 5.000 Medieneinheiten pro Sammlung einstellen. Wenn Sie erstmal mehr mit Library-Thing vertraut sind, werden Ihnen sicherlich weitere Einsatzmöglichkeiten für Ihre Einrichtung und deren Nutzer einfallen. LibraryThing entwickelt sich beständig weiter und dürfte noch für einige Überraschungen gut sein.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 10:36:23
  10. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 2: forms of name (2000) 0.01 
    0.014199704 = product of:
  0.06389867 = sum of:
    0.023429861 = weight(_text_:of in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023429861 = score(doc=5400,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
    0.04046881 = weight(_text_:systems in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04046881 = score(doc=5400,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Continues the results of the Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, this looking at forms of name and cross-references. Tests were conducted to examine results of searching for a personal name, Leonardo da Vinci, and a corporate entered subordinately, under parts of the name which were not the leading element. Many libraries provide no cross-references, and in many cases the presence absence of punctuation in the search string has a significant effect. The effect variation when combined in an Author/Title search is also considered. The also considers the special filing of names beginning Mc, which is almost confined to some British systems, and the interfiling of subject with author entries personal names. A number of recommendations conclude the article.
  11. Oberhauser, O.: Card-Image Public Access Catalogues (CIPACs) : issues concerned with their planning and implementation (2003) 0.01 
    0.013316814 = product of:
  0.05992566 = sum of:
    0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019052157 = score(doc=5065,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
    0.040873505 = weight(_text_:software in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040873505 = score(doc=5065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This article identifies and discusses the issues and problems that need to be considered in the process of planning and implementing card-image public access catalogues (CIPACs). CIPACs are online library catalogues based an databases of digitised catalogue cards with more or less sophisticated mechanisms for browsing or searching. Solutions of this kind have been implemented by a number of libraries in various countries since the mid-1990s, mainly as inexpensive alternatives to full retrospective conversion of their old catalogues. Based upon a questionnaire and relevant literature, the article looks at the following aspects: cost, conversion Speed, universal access, saving of space, preservational aspects, Software selection, preparing the card catalogue for conversion, scanning and quality control, image standards, optical character recognition, manual and intellectual input, technological aspects, administrative tools, organisational aspects, peculiarities of old catalogues, presentation of CIPACs to the users, and life expectancy of card-image catalogues.
  12. Peterson, E.: Parallel systems : the coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy (2008) 0.01 
    0.013026112 = product of:
  0.058617502 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=251,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
    0.04046881 = weight(_text_:systems in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04046881 = score(doc=251,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.
  13. Whitney , C.; Schiff, L.: ¬The Melvyl Recommender Project : developing library recommendation services (2006) 0.01 
    0.010530886 = product of:
  0.047388986 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=1173,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.034687545 = weight(_text_:systems in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034687545 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.
  14. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs, symbols,and canons : The epistemology of the work (2001) 0.01 
    0.009913453 = product of:
  0.044610538 = sum of:
    0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020082738 = score(doc=1119,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.
  15. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.01 
    0.009899746 = product of:
  0.044548854 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
    0.031847417 = product of:
      0.063694835 = sum of:
        0.063694835 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063694835 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, 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=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  16. Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009) 0.01 
    0.009750018 = product of:
  0.04387508 = sum of:
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=2939,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=2939,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1392-1406
  17. Gardner, S.A.: ¬The changing landscape of contemporary cataloging (2008) 0.01 
    0.009652025 = product of:
  0.043434113 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=795,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 795, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=795)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=795)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Intended to contribute to the current dialogue about how the emerging information environment is impacting cataloging issues, this survey paper covers a broad range of topics, such as how search engines compare with integrated library systems, and includes some thoughts on how cataloging processes may evolve to continue to remain relevant. The author suggests that there is a need for significant changes in integrated library system interfaces and infrastructures as well as some changes in cataloging practice. The value of descriptive vs. non-descriptive elements in the catalog record and some pros and cons of the MARC format are covered.
  18. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.01 
    0.0091910185 = product of:
  0.04135958 = sum of:
    0.025168357 = weight(_text_:applications in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025168357 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.14592396 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.016191222 = weight(_text_:of in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016191222 = score(doc=1271,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.26429096 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
    The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
    Editor
    Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
  19. Coyle, K.: ¬The virtual union catalog : a comparative study (2000) 0.01 
    0.008907516 = product of:
  0.04008382 = sum of:
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=1230,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=1230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    A Virtual union catalog is a possible alternative to the centralized database of distributed resources found in many library systems. Such a catalog would not be maintained in a single location but would be created in real time by searching each local campus or affiliate library's catalog through the Z39.50 protocol. This would eliminate the redundancy of record storage as well as the expense of loading and maintaining access to the central catalog. This article describes a test implementation of a virtual union catalog for the University of California system. It describes some of the differences between the virtual catalog and the existing, centralized union catalog (MELVYL). The research described in the paper suggests enhancements that must be made if the virtual union catalog is to become a reasonable service alternative to the MELVYL® catalog.
  20. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.01 
    0.0075302785 = product of:
  0.033886254 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=54,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
    0.015923709 = product of:
      0.031847417 = sum of:
        0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031847417 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
    Source
    Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari

Authors

Languages

  • e 58
  • d 12
  • a 2
  • f 1
  • slv 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 62
  • el 13
  • m 4
  • r 4
  • b 3
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications