Search (60 results, page 1 of 3)

0.022831505 = product of:
  0.10274177 = sum of:
    0.08718575 = weight(_text_:applications in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08718575 = score(doc=5574,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.5054954 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=5574,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5574, 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=5574)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The Twitter hashtag is a unique tagging format linking Tweets to user-defined concepts. The aim of the paper is to describe various applications of Twitter hashtags and to determine the functional characteristics of each application. Twitter hashtags can assist in archiving twitter content, provide different visual representations of tweets, and permit grouping by categories and facets. This study seeks to examine the trends in Twitter hashtag features and how these may be applied as enhancements for next-generation library catalogues. For this purpose, Taylor's value-added model is used as an analytical framework. The morphological box developed by Zwicky is used to synthesize functionalities of Twitter hashtag applications. And finally, included are recommendations for the design of hashtag-based value-added dimensions for future library catalogues.

0.016343227 = product of:
  0.07354452 = sum of:
    0.05872617 = weight(_text_:applications in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05872617 = score(doc=1891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34048924 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=1891,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1891, 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=1891)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Kent State University Libraries' ETD cataloging process features contributions by authors, by the ETDcat application, and by catalogers. Who is doing what, and how much of it is findable in the library catalog? An empirical analysis is performed featuring simple frequencies within the KentLINK catalog, articulated by the use of a newly devised rubric. The researchers sought the degree to which the ETD authors, the applications, and the catalogers can supply accurate, findable metadata. Further development of combinatory cataloging processes is suggested. The method of examining the data and the rubric are provided as a framework for other metadata analysis.

0.016179638 = product of:
  0.07280837 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 5582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=5582,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 5582, 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=5582)
    0.054845825 = weight(_text_:systems in 5582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054845825 = score(doc=5582,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.45554203 = fieldWeight in 5582, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5582)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

If the public library catalogue is to continue to have relevance to its users, it needs to move beyond its current inventory model, where all content is designed and controlled by library staff and client interaction with catalogue content is limited, to a social catalogue, where users can contribute to, and interact with information and with each other. The goal of this report is to present the results of an analysis of four months worth of log analysis of two social discovery systems used in two Canadian public libraries to examine: (a) how public library users interact with social discovery systems; (b) how usage compares between the two social discovery systems; and (c) whether the use of the features in social discovery systems is consistent over time. Results suggest that clients are making limited use of the social features of the system that allow them to interact with the catalogue records and with one another.

0.015902052 = product of:
  0.071559235 = sum of:
    0.05872617 = weight(_text_:applications in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05872617 = score(doc=2430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34048924 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
    0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128330635 = score(doc=2430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper explores a technique to improve searcher access to library collections by providing a faceted search interface built on a data model based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). The prototype provides a Workcentric view of a moving image collection that is integrated with bibliographic and holdings data. Two sets of facets address important user needs: "what do you want?" and "how/where do you want it?" enabling patrons to narrow, broaden and pivot across facet values instead of limiting them to the tree-structured hierarchy common with existing FRBR applications. The data model illustrates how FRBR is being adapted and applied beyond the traditional library catalog.

0.014898238 = product of:
  0.06704207 = sum of:
    0.012963352 = weight(_text_:of in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012963352 = score(doc=3612,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.054078713 = weight(_text_:systems in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054078713 = score(doc=3612,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4491705 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Information seeking is a fundamental human activity. In the modern world, it is frequently conducted through interactions with search systems. The retrieval and comprehension of information returned by these systems is a key part of decision making and action in a broad range of settings. Advances in data availability coupled with new interaction paradigms, and mobile and cloud computing capabilities, have created a broad range of new opportunities for information access and use. In this comprehensive book for professionals, researchers, and students involved in search system design and evaluation, search expert Ryen White discusses how search systems can capitalize on new capabilities and how next-generation systems must support higher order search activities such as task completion, learning, and decision making. He outlines the implications of these changes for the evolution of search evaluation, as well as challenges that extend beyond search systems in areas such as privacy and societal benefit.

Footnote

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Lewandowski, D.: Wie "Next Generation Search Systems" die Suche auf eine neue Ebene heben und die Informationswelt verändern. In: http://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=254&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045..

0.014030818 = product of:
  0.06313868 = sum of:
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 5571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=5571,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5571, 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=5571)
    0.048169892 = weight(_text_:software in 5571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048169892 = score(doc=5571,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 5571, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5571)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

One of the presumed advantages of next-generation library catalogue interfaces is that the user experience is improved-that it is both richer and more intuitive. Often the interfaces come with little or no user-facing documentation or imbedded "help" for patrons based on an assumption of ease of use and familiarity of the experience, having followed best practices in use on the Web. While there has been much gray literature (published on library Web sites, etc.) interrogating these implicit claims and contrasting the new interfaces to traditional Web-based catalogues, this article details a consistent and formal comparison of whether users can actually accomplish common library tasks, unassisted, using these interfaces. The author has undertaken a task-based usability test of vendor-provided next-generation catalogue interfaces and Web-scale discovery tools (Encore Synergy, Summon, WorldCat Local, Primo Central, EBSCO Discovery Service). Testing was done with undergraduates across all academic disciplines. The resulting qualitative data, noting any demonstrated trouble using the software as well as feedback or suggested improvements that the users may have about the software, will assist academic libraries in making or validating purchase and subscription decisions for these interfaces as well as help vendors make data-driven decisions about interface and experience enhancements.

0.0118083125 = product of:
  0.053137407 = sum of:
    0.0122639 = weight(_text_:systems in 4311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0122639 = score(doc=4311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1018623 = fieldWeight in 4311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4311)
    0.040873505 = weight(_text_:software in 4311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040873505 = score(doc=4311,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4311, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4311)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Bibliotheksnutzende werden heute bei der Suche nach Informationen mit verschiedensten Suchoberflächen von Katalogen, Datenbanken und Repositories konfrontiert. Eine Möglichkeit, die Recherche nach gedruckten und elektronischen Medien bequemer zu gestalten, ist die Implementierung eines Werkzeuges auf Basis von Suchmaschinentechnologie, mithilfe dessen alle integrierten Quellen über nur ein Suchfeld gleichzeitig abgefragt werden können. Im Rahmen dieser Diplomarbeit sollen die Erfahrungen von Bibliotheken mit einer solchen Software, nämlich Primo von Ex Libris, verglichen werden. Zweck ist es herauszufinden, welche Erwartungen der Einsatz von Primo in Bibliotheken bzw. Bibliotheksverbünden im deutschsprachigen Raum einerseits wecken und andererseits erfüllen kann. Ausgangspunkt für die Arbeit war dabei die geplante Einführung von Primo an der Bibliothek der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien (WU), bei der man bereits auf Erfahrungswerte anderer Institutionen zurückgreifen möchte. Eine der ursprünglichen Hypothesen ist, dass der Implementierungsaufwand von Primo durch die Serviceverbesserung für Bibliotheksnutzende durch zusammengeführte Informationen gerechtfertigt wird. Weiters wird angenommen, dass sich durch den Zusammenschluss mehrerer Bibliotheken beim Einsatz von Primo für die einzelnen Einrichtungen zusätzlich Verbesserungen im bibliotheksadministrativen Bereich ergeben, was deshalb relevant ist, weil für die österreichischen Bibliotheken eine Konsortiallösung für Primo angeboten wird. Auch dass durch den Einsatz von Primo Bibliotheksbestände aus verschiedenen Sammlungen einer Bibliothek in unterschiedlichen Medienformaten besser genutzt werden, ist eine Hypothese. Schließlich wird angenommen, dass sich Bibliotheksmanager durch den Einsatz von Primo Verbesserungen der Recherchebedingungen für Bibliotheksangestellte im Auskunftsdienst erhoffen. Um einen genaueren Einblick in die Funktionen von Primo zu bekommen, wurden anfänglich Informationen von der Anbieterfirma Ex Libris zusammengefasst.
Außerdem wurden die Pläne, Erwartungen und Befürchtungen der WU-Bibliothek im Zusammenhang mit Primo festgehalten. Aufgrund eines Vergleichs von Informationen aus Experteninterviews sollen anschließend bewährte Vorgehensweisen für andere Institutionen und Verbünde, die den Einsatz der Search & Discovery-Software planen, identifiziert werden. Zu diesem Zweck wurden Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare aus wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken befragt, die in den Einführungsprozess involviert waren. Dies sind im Speziellen Angestellte der Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim, der Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Tirol in Innsbruck, der Universitätsbibliothek Wien und der Bibliothek der ETH Zürich, zugleich Host des Schweizer NEBIS-Verbunds. Ergänzend wurde als Primo-Host der österreichischen Bibliotheken die Österreichische Bibliothekenverbund und Service Gesellschaft mbH (OBVSG) kontaktiert. Dabei wurden von den Projektverantwortlichen insbesondere die Erwartungen vor dem Einsatz von Primo erfragt, aber auch mit welchen Hürden und Problemen die Implementierung der Software verbunden war. Ein Vergleich der erhaltenen Informationen erlaubt einen Rückschluss auf generell erhoffte Veränderungen durch die Einführung des Systems und häufig auftretende Ereignisse im Projektverlauf. Verglichen werden dabei nicht nur die Angaben der Primo einsetzenden Bibliotheken untereinander, sondern auch deren Erfahrungen mit den von Ex Libris angenommenen Projektverläufen. Abschließend werden auch noch die Erwartungen der WU-Bibliothek mit den gesammelten Informationen verglichen.
Die Ergebnisse der Analyse sind teils überraschend, so konnten die ursprünglichen Hypothesen aufgrund der Berichte seitens der Primo einsetzenden Bibliotheken nicht durchwegs bestätigt werden. Eine Verbesserung der Bestandsnutzung konnte teilweise bereits beobachtet werden, da in zwei Bibliotheken vor allem die Zugriffszahlen auf elektronische Datenbankinhalte nach dem Freischalten von Primo stark gestiegen sind. Auch dass der konsortiale Einsatz innerhalb eines Verbund Vorteile mit sich bringt, konnte bestätigt werden. Allerdings wurde auch der zusätzliche Kommunikations- und Abstimmungsaufwand betont, da sich die teilnehmenden Verbundbibliotheken aufgrund einer gemeinsamen Installation auf bestimmte Einstellungen einigen müssen. Einig war man sich in dem Punkt, dass der Aufwand bei der Einführung des Produkts letztlich durch die zu erwartende Serviceverbesserung für Bibliotheksnutzende gerechtfertigt wird. Tatsächliche Erfahrungswerte gibt es in diesem Bereich noch nicht, da die Einsatzdauer der Suchoberfläche zum Zeitpunkt der Befragungen in keiner der Bibliotheken lange genug für aussagekräftige Benutzerrückmeldungen war. Weniger angenommen wird allerdings eine Verbesserung der Recherchebedingungen für Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare durch Primo, da man bei dem suchmaschinentechnologiebasierten Produkt die Möglichkeit zur Abfrage einzelner Datenfelder wie z.B. bei der Suchmaske einer relationalen Datenbank vermisst. Aus diesem Grund wird angenommen, dass die Mitarbeitenden bei der Dienstrecherche weiterhin auf die Bearbeitersicht des OPACs oder direkt auf Spezialdatenbanken zugreifen werden. Im Auskunftsdienst arbeiten die Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare allerdings mit derselben Primo-Suchoberfläche wie die Bibliotheksnutzenden. Da sich im Zeitraum der Erstellung der Diplomarbeit laufend weitere Bibliotheken für den Einsatz von Primo entschieden haben, sollten diese nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben. Im Anhang befinden sich daher die Informationen, die von Projektmitgliedern der Bibliothek der Veterinärmedizinischen Universität Wien, der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek und der Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Münster zur geplanten Einführung der Software eingeholt wurden. Diese geben einen Ausblick auf die zukünftigen Implementierungsprojekte von Primo im deutschsprachigen Raum.

0.010539032 = product of:
  0.047425643 = sum of:
    0.022897845 = weight(_text_:of in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022897845 = score(doc=5560,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=5560,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5560, 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=5560)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogues can be viewed as the latest manifestation of a tendency in library catalogue history to strive for centralization of access to collections-a single portal for the discovery of library resources. Due to an increasing volume of published materials and the explosion of online information resources during the Internet age, the library does not currently provide centralized access to its various information silos, nor does it provide a user-friendly search and retrieval experience for users whose expectations are shaped by Google and other major commercial Web sites. Searching across library resources is a complicated task, bearing high-attention "transaction costs" for the user, which discourage the use of library resources. Libraries need access systems that minimize complexity, easing discovery and delivery of resources for user populations. Here, the authors review past efforts of centralization of access, consider the potential of next-generation catalogues in the context of this historical tendency toward centralization of access, and describe what goals underlie that centralization.

0.010449912 = product of:
  0.047024604 = sum of:
    0.012963352 = weight(_text_:of in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012963352 = score(doc=1103,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
    0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034061253 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.1995-2012

0.010142646 = product of:
  0.045641907 = sum of:
    0.016735615 = weight(_text_:of in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016735615 = score(doc=5570,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5570, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5570)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=5570,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5570, 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=5570)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the standard subject language used in library catalogues, are often criticized for their lack of currency, biased language, and atypical syndetic structure. Conversely, folksonomies (or tags), which rely on the natural language of their users, offer a flexibility often lacking in controlled vocabularies and may offer a means of augmenting more rigid controlled vocabularies such as LCSH. Content analysis studies have demonstrated the potential for folksonomies to be used as a means of enhancing subject access to materials, and libraries are beginning to integrate tagging systems into their catalogues. This study examines the utility of tags as a means of enhancing subject access to materials in library online public access catalogues (OPACs) through usability testing with the LibraryThing for Libraries catalogue enhancements. Findings indicate that while they cannot replace LCSH, tags do show promise for aiding information seeking in OPACs. In the context of information systems design, the study revealed that while folksonomies have the potential to enhance subject access to materials, that potential is severely limited by the current inability of catalogue interfaces to support tag-based searches alongside standard catalogue searches.

0.010040707 = product of:
  0.04518318 = sum of:
    0.016567415 = weight(_text_:of in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016567415 = score(doc=5277,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5277, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5277)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=5277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5277, 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=5277)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Shifting library catalogs from physical to digital has come at a cost. Catalog records no longer leave traces of their own evolution, which is a loss for librarianship. The subjective nature of information classification warrants self-examination, within which we may see the evolution of practice, debates over attribution and relevance, and how culture is reflected in the systems used to describe it. Wikipedia models what is possible: revision histories and discussion pages function as knowledge generators. A list of unanswerable questions for the modern catalog urges us to construct a new, forward-thinking bibliography that allows us to look backward.

0.009083001 = product of:
  0.08174701 = sum of:
    0.08174701 = weight(_text_:software in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08174701 = score(doc=181,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.525975 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Als eines der Ergebnisse der 2007 zwischen BVB und KOBV geschlossenen strategischen Allianz konnte am 12. September 2011 Mable+, eine Java-gestützte OpenSource-Software zur automatischen Daten- und Fehleranalyse von Bibliothekskatalogen, veröffentlicht werden. Basierend auf dem MAB-Datenaustauschformat ermöglicht Mable+ die formale Prüfung von Katalogdaten verbunden mit einer statistischen Auswertung über die Verteilung der Felder. Dazu benötigt es einen MAB-Abzug des Katalogs im MAB2-Bandformat mit MAB2-Zeichensatz. Dieses Datenpaket wird innerhalb weniger Minuten analysiert. Als Ergebnis erhält man einen Report mit einer allgemeinen Statistik zu den geprüften Datensätzen (Verteilung der Satztypen, Anzahl der MAB-Felder, u.a.), sowie eine Liste gefundener Fehler. Die Software wurde bereits bei der Migration der Katalogdaten aller KOBV-Bibliotheken in den B3Kat erfolgreich eingesetzt. Auf der Projekt-Webseite http://mable.kobv.de/ findet man allgemeine Informationen sowie diverse Anleitungen zur Nutzung des Programms. Die Software kann man sich unter http://mable.kobv.de/download.html herunterladen. Derzeit wird ein weiterführendes Konzept zur Nutzung und Modifizierung der Software entwickelt.

0.008907516 = product of:
  0.04008382 = sum of:
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=5569,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5569, 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=5569)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5569, 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=5569)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

To improve resource discovery and retrieval, libraries have implemented new discovery services, such as next generation catalogues, federated search, and Web-scale discovery, in addition to their traditional integrated library systems. These new discovery services greatly improve the user experience by utilizing existing cataloguing records housed within the library system or in combination with metadata from other sources, both in and outside of libraries. However, to maximize the functionality of these discovery services, libraries must reexamine current cataloguing practices and the way libraries control the bibliographic description to better serve the user's needs. This report discusses how new discovery services use the cataloguing records and the challenges that libraries encounter in bibliographic control to work with new discovery services, including the quality of cataloguing records, granular levels of bibliographic description, and integration of user-generated metadata into the cataloguing records. Each of these aspects requires further discussion.

0.008687538 = product of:
  0.03909392 = sum of:
    0.010478153 = weight(_text_:of in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010478153 = score(doc=2017,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=2017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2017, 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=2017)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article examines the benefits of a Resource Description and Access (RDA) enrichment project for libraries. Enrichment projects "hybridize", or enrich legacy Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) bibliographic records with RDA data. Until a replacement for MARC is developed, bibliographic data will continue to be encoded in MARC 21 in many integrated library systems. Library catalogs contain records coded under both AACR2 and RDA standards. RDA enrichment projects benefit the patron experience because the data is cleaner and more consistent for patron use and display, cataloging staff workflows are simplified, and the consistency of the data is advantageous for system development and data exchange with other communities

0.0084427325 = product of:
  0.037992295 = sum of:
    0.017552461 = weight(_text_:of in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017552461 = score(doc=3871,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.

0.0076537454 = product of:
  0.034441855 = sum of:
    0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140020205 = score(doc=5562,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This case study demonstrates how competitive usability testing informs the selection and purchase of a next-generation catalogue (NGC) or Web-scale discovery system (WSDS) to enhance a current library catalogue. Using competitive usability techniques, the authors explain how different NGCs and WSDSs solve issues that catalogue users may face when searching for materials in the online catalogue. The goal of this study is to provide a framework that identifies concrete evidence in support of purchase recommendations for an effective system that adequately addresses locally identified issues with catalogue searches. The process of selecting live system implementations from peer institutions is outlined. Steps include surveying library staff about their current library catalogue. Survey results and documented reference questions provided the foundation for user tasks created by testers for use in this study. This multifaceted research design resulted in a case study that captures current issues that users encounter in the discovery and access to library materials and shows how to include competitive usability techniques as part of a purchase rationale while assessing how well a variety of next-generation discovery and access systems address users' issues.

0.0072724735 = product of:
  0.03272613 = sum of:
    0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802425 = score(doc=5188,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
    0.015923709 = product of:
      0.031847417 = sum of:
        0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031847417 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5188, 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=5188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article asserts that many research questions (RQs) in cataloging reflect design-based RQs, rather than traditional scientific ones. To support this idea, a review of existing discussions of RQs is presented to identify prominent types of RQs, including design-based RQs. RQ types are then classified into a taxonomic framework and compared with RQs from the Everyday Cataloger Concerns project, which aimed to identify important areas of research from the perspective of practicing catalogers. This comparative method demonstrates the ways in which the research areas identified by cataloging practitioners reflect design RQs-and therefore require design approaches and methods to answer them.

Date

30. 5.2019 19:14:22

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Ethos of Care: A Festschrift for Dr. Allyson Carlyle at the Occasion of her Retirement'.

0.0062938365 = product of:
  0.05664453 = sum of:
    0.05664453 = weight(_text_:systems in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664453 = score(doc=3611,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Suchmaschinen befinden sich einerseits in einem beständigen Wandel. Andererseits gibt es immer wieder Entwicklungen, die die Suche "auf eine neue Ebene" heben. Eine solche Entwicklung, die wir zurzeit erleben, wird unter dem Label "Next Generation Search Systems" geführt. Der Begriff fasst die Veränderungen durch eine Vielfalt von Geräten und Eingabemöglichkeiten, die Verfügbarkeit von Verhaltensdaten en masse und den Wandel von Dokumenten zu Antworten zusammen.

Footnote

Bezug zum Buch: White, R.: Interactions with search systems. New York ; Cambridge University Press ; 2016.

0.006275233 = product of:
  0.028238548 = sum of:
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=420,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
    0.013269759 = product of:
      0.026539518 = sum of:
        0.026539518 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026539518 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_f.pdf.

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.006055334 = product of:
  0.054498006 = sum of:
    0.054498006 = weight(_text_:software in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054498006 = score(doc=4310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.35064998 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Im letzten Jahr haben sich einige deutschsprachige Bibliotheken und Bibliotheksverbünde für die Einführung von Suchmaschinentechnologie zur einfacheren Recherche in ihren Beständen entschieden. So wurden von mehreren österreichischen Universitätsbibliotheken und der OBVSG Projekte zum Einsatz der Software Primo von Ex Libris gestartet bzw. abgeschlossen. Auch in Deutschland und der Schweiz gab es Pilotprojekte, bei denen bereits erste Erfahrungen mit dem Produkt gesammelt werden konnten. Im Rahmen einer Masterthesis (Diplomarbeit) wurden Erwartungen und erste Eindrücke mittels Interviews erhoben und verglichen.