Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

0.07927468 = product of:
  0.14269441 = sum of:
    0.0363274 = weight(_text_:applications in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0363274 = score(doc=1792,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21062312 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
    0.014493468 = weight(_text_:of in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014493468 = score(doc=1792,freq=60.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23657836 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          7.745967 = tf(freq=60.0), with freq of:
            60.0 = termFreq=60.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
    0.049013 = weight(_text_:systems in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049013 = score(doc=1792,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.40709537 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
    0.017030627 = weight(_text_:software in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017030627 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.10957812 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
    0.025829926 = product of:
      0.051659852 = sum of:
        0.051659852 = weight(_text_:packages in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051659852 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2706874 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9093957 = idf(docFreq=119, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.1908469 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9093957 = idf(docFreq=119, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5555556 = coord(5/9)

Abstract

Specifically designed for core units in library automation and information systems, this long awaited new text gives students a comprehensive overview of one of the most critical areas of library operations. Produced by two internationally known scholars, Thomas Kochtanek and Joseph Matthews, this book will enable students to take the lead in managing an immense diversity of information resources and at the same time handle the complexities that information technology brings to the library. Giving important insight into library information systems-from the historical background to the latest technological trends and developments-the book is organized into 14 chapters, each presenting helpful information on such topics as systems design, types of systems, coverage of standards and standards organizations, technology axioms, system selection and implementation, usability of systems, library information systems management, technology trends, digital libraries, and more. New to the acclaimed Library and Information Science Text Series, this book will prove an indispensable resource to students preparing for a career in today's ever-evolving library environment. Complete with charts and illustrations, chapter summaries, suggested print and electronic resources, a glossary of terms, and an index, this text will be of central importance to libraries and library schools everywhere.

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.12, S.1166-1167 (Brenda Chawner): "Kochtanek and Matthews have written a welcome addition to the small set of introductory texts an applications of information technology to library and information Services. The book has fourteen chapters grouped into four sections: "The Broader Context," "The Technologies," "Management Issues," and "Future Considerations." Two chapters provide the broad content, with the first giving a historical overview of the development and adoption of "library information systems." Kochtanek and Matthews define this as "a wide array of solutions that previously might have been considered separate industries with distinctly different marketplaces" (p. 3), referring specifically to integrated library systems (ILS, and offen called library management systems in this part of the world), and online databases, plus the more recent developments of Web-based resources, digital libraries, ebooks, and ejournals. They characterize technology adoption patterns in libraries as ranging from "bleeding edge" to "leading edge" to "in the wedge" to "trailing edge"-this is a catchy restatement of adopter categories from Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory, where they are more conventionally known as "early adopters," "early majority," "late majority," and "laggards." This chapter concludes with a look at more general technology trends that have affected library applications, including developments in hardware (moving from mainframes to minicomputers to personal Computers), changes in software development (from in-house to packages), and developments in communications technology (from dedicated host Computers to more open networks to the current distributed environment found with the Internet). This is followed by a chapter describing the ILS and online database industries in some detail. "The Technologies" begins with a chapter an the structure and functionality of integrated library systems, which also includes a brief discussion of precision versus recall, managing access to internal documents, indexing and searching, and catalogue maintenance. This is followed by a chapter an open systems, which concludes with a useful list of questions to consider to determine an organization's readiness to adopt open source solutions. As one world expect, this section also includes a detailed chapter an telecommunications and networking, which includes types of networks, transmission media, network topologies, switching techniques (ranging from dial up and leased lines to ISDN/DSL, frame relay, and ATM). It concludes with a chapter an the role and importance of standards, which covers the need for standards and standards organizations, and gives examples of different types of standards, such as MARC, Dublin Core, Z39.50, and markup standards such as SGML, HTML, and XML. Unicode is also covered but only briefly. This section world be strengthened by a chapter an hardware concepts-the authors assume that their reader is already familiar with these, which may not be true in all cases (for example, the phrase "client-Server" is first used an page 11, but only given a brief definition in the glossary). Burke's Library Technology Companion: A Basic Guide for Library Staff (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2001) might be useful to fill this gap at an introductory level, and Saffady's Introduction to Automation for Librarians, 4th ed. (Chicago: American Library Association, 1999) world be better for those interested in more detail. The final two sections, however, are the book's real strength, with a strong focus an management issues, and this content distinguishes it from other books an this topic such as Ferguson and Hebels Computers for Librarians: an Introduction to Systems and Applications (Waggawagga, NSW: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, 1998). ...
Though the book definitely meets a need for an up-to-date introduction to library information systems and associated management issues, and the emphasis an management issues means that it will not date too quickly, there is room for improvement. Some topics are described too briefly to be useful, such as customization/personalization, which is covered in a single paragraph, and does not mention recent developments such as the MyLibrary concept. Other topics seem to have only a peripheral connection to the main chapter theme-for example, it is surprising to find a discussion of information literacy at the end of the chapter an system selection and implementation, and the material an personalization/customization is at the end of the discussion of intranets. Despite these comments, 1 would consider using this as a textbook in an introductory course an library automation or information technology, and practitioners who want to upgrade their knowledge of current practices and issues will also find it useful. People who are primarily interested in a specific topic, such as information systems planning or system selection and implementation are likely to find more specialized books such as Planning for Integrated Systems and Technologies: A How-to-Do-It Manual for Librarians by John M. Cohn, Anne L. Kelsey, and Keith Michael Fiels (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2001) more useful."

LCSH

Integrated library systems (Computer systems)
Information storage and retrieval systems

Subject

Integrated library systems (Computer systems)
Information storage and retrieval systems

0.018217383 = product of:
  0.054652147 = sum of:
    0.014200641 = weight(_text_:of in 5271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014200641 = score(doc=5271,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 5271, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5271)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 5271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=5271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5271, 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=5271)
    0.015923709 = product of:
      0.031847417 = sum of:
        0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 5271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031847417 = score(doc=5271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5271, 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=5271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Federated search and distributed information retrieval systems provide a single user interface for searching multiple full-text search engines. They have been an active area of research for more than a decade, but in spite of their success as a research topic, they are still rare in operational environments. This article discusses a prototype federated search system developed for the U.S. government's FedStats Web portal, and the issues addressed in adapting research solutions to this operational environment. A series of experiments explore how well prior research results, parameter settings, and heuristics apply in the FedStats environment. The article concludes with a set of lessons learned from this technology transfer effort, including observations about search engine quality in the real world.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:02:07

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.347-358

0.017406443 = product of:
  0.078329 = sum of:
    0.05872617 = weight(_text_:applications in 4760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05872617 = score(doc=4760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34048924 = fieldWeight in 4760, 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=4760)
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 4760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=4760,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 4760, 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=4760)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Metadata harvesting is an increasingly popular model of interaction between the mutually autonomous parties of medium, medium-large federations of digital library services. With a harvesting protocol, in particular, resource descriptions locally available at each party can be served to remote applications for the implementation of federated services, such as resource discovery. This article offers a systematic explanation of the success of the model and its standard implementations in the context of current initiatives for national and international federations.

0.015581901 = product of:
  0.070118554 = sum of:
    0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021062955 = score(doc=3597,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
    0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0490556 = score(doc=3597,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

User demands to have access to complete and actual information about research may require integration of data from different CRISs. CRISs are rarely homogenous systems and problems of CRISs integration must be addressed from technological point of view. Implementation of CRIS providing access to heterogeneous data distributed among a number of CRISs is described. A few technologies - distributed databases, web services, semantic web are used for distributed CRIS to address different user requirements. Distributed databases serve to implement very efficient integration of homogenous systems, web services - to provide open access to research information, semantic web - to solve problems of integration semantically and structurally heterogeneous data sources and provide intelligent data retrieval interfaces. The problems of data completeness in distributed systems are addressed and CRIS-adequate solution for data completeness is suggested.

Source

Gaining insight from research information (CRIS2002): Proceedings of the 6th International Conference an Current Research Information Systems, University of Kassel, August 29 - 31, 2002. Eds: W. Adamczak u. A. Nase

0.014054486 = product of:
  0.063245185 = sum of:
    0.009166474 = weight(_text_:of in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009166474 = score(doc=1193,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1496253 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
    0.054078713 = weight(_text_:systems in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054078713 = score(doc=1193,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4491705 = fieldWeight in 1193, 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=1193)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article describes two approaches for searching heterogeneous resources, which are explained as they are used in two corresponding existing systems-RIRS (Resource Integration Retrieval System) and HRUSP (Heterogeneous Resource Union Search Platform). On analyzing the existing systems, a possible framework-the MUSP (Multimetadata-Based Union Search Platform) is presented. Libraries now face a dilemma. On one hand, libraries subscribe to many types of database retrieval systems that are produced by various providers. The libraries build their data and information systems independently. This results in highly heterogeneous and distributed systems at the technical level (e.g., different operating systems and user interfaces) and at the conceptual level (e.g., the same objects are named using different terms). On the other hand, end users want to access all these heterogeneous data via a union interface, without having to know the structure of each information system or the different retrieval methods used by the systems. Libraries must achieve a harmony between information providers and users. In order to bridge the gap between the service providers and the users, it would seem that all source databases would need to be rebuilt according to a uniform data structure and query language, but this seems impossible. Fortunately, however, libraries and information and technology providers are now making an effort to find a middle course that meets the requirements of both data providers and users. They are doing this through resource integration.

0.01304064 = product of:
  0.05868288 = sum of:
    0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041947264 = score(doc=1154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
    0.016735615 = weight(_text_:of in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016735615 = score(doc=1154,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1154, 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=1154)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Metasearch - also called parallel search, federated search, broadcast search, and cross-database search - has become commonplace in the information community's vocabulary. All speak to a common theme of searching and retrieving from multiple databases, sources, platforms, protocols, and vendors at the point of the user's request. Metasearch services rely on a variety of approaches including open standards (such as NISO's Z39.50 and SRU/SRW), proprietary programming interfaces, and "screen scraping." However, the absence of widely supported standards, best practices, and tools makes the metasearch environment less efficient for the metasearch provider, the content provider, and ultimately the end-user. To spur the development of widely supported standards and best practices, the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) sponsored a Metasearch Initiative in 2003 to enable: * metasearch service providers to offer more effective and responsive services, * content providers to deliver enhanced content and protect their intellectual property, and * libraries to deliver a simple search (a.k.a. "Google") that covers the breadth of their vetted commercial and free resources. The Access Management Task Group was one of three groups chartered by NISO as part of the Metasearch Initiative. The focus of the group was on gathering requirements for Metasearch authentication and access needs, inventorying existing processes, developing a series of formal use cases describing the access needs, recommending best practices given today's processes, and recommending and pursing changes to current solutions to better support metasearch applications. In September 2005, the group issued their final report and recommendation. This article summarizes the group's work and final recommendation.

0.0126480125 = product of:
  0.056916054 = sum of:
    0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041947264 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=1164,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1164, 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=1164)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The objective of the European Library (TEL) project [TEL] was to set up a co-operative framework and specify a system for integrated access to the major collections of the European national libraries. This has been achieved by successfully applying a new approach for search and retrieval via URLs (SRU) [ZiNG] combined with a new metadata paradigm. One aim of the TEL approach is to have a low barrier of entry into TEL, and this has driven our choice for the technical solution described here. The solution comprises portal and client functionality running completely in the browser, resulting in a low implementation barrier and maximum scalability, as well as giving users control over the search interface and what collections to search. In this article we will describe, step by step, the development of both the search and retrieval architecture and the metadata infrastructure in the European Library project. We will show that SRU is a good alternative to the Z39.50 protocol and can be implemented without losing investments in current Z39.50 implementations. The metadata model being used by TEL is a Dublin Core Application Profile, and we have taken into account that functional requirements will change over time and therefore the metadata model will need to be able to evolve in a controlled way. We make this possible by means of a central metadata registry containing all characteristics of the metadata in TEL. Finally, we provide two scenarios to show how the TEL concept can be developed and extended, with applications capable of increasing their functionality by "learning" new metadata or protocol options.

0.011030885 = product of:
  0.049638983 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 6560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=6560,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 6560, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6560)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 6560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=6560,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6560, 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=6560)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Nowadays, users of information services are faced with highly decentralised, heterogeneous document sources with different content analysis. Semantic heterogeneity occurs e.g. when resources using different systems for content description are searched using a simple query system. This report describes several approaches of handling semantic heterogeneity used in projects of the German Social Science Information Centre

0.009775104 = product of:
  0.029325312 = sum of:
    0.015841477 = weight(_text_:of in 3964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015841477 = score(doc=3964,freq=112.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25858206 = fieldWeight in 3964, product of:
          10.583005 = tf(freq=112.0), with freq of:
            112.0 = termFreq=112.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3964)
    0.008175933 = weight(_text_:systems in 3964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008175933 = score(doc=3964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.0679082 = fieldWeight in 3964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3964)
    0.0053079035 = product of:
      0.010615807 = sum of:
        0.010615807 = weight(_text_:22 in 3964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010615807 = score(doc=3964,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3964, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: Devadason, F.J., N. Intaraksa u. P. Patamawongjariya u.a.: Faceted indexing application for organizing and accessing internet resources; Nicholson, D., S. Wake: HILT: subject retrieval in a distributed environment; Olson, T.: Integrating LCSH and MeSH in information systems; Kuhr, P.S.: Putting the world back together: mapping multiple vocabularies into a single thesaurus; Freyre, E., M. Naudi: MACS : subject access across languages and networks; McIlwaine, I.C.: The UDC and the World Wide Web; Garrison, W.A.: The Colorado Digitization Project: subject access issues; Vizine-Goetz, D., R. Thompson: Towards DDC-classified displays of Netfirst search results: subject access issues; Godby, C.J., J. Stuler: The Library of Congress Classification as a knowledge base for automatic subject categorization: subject access issues; O'Neill, E.T., E. Childress u. R. Dean u.a.: FAST: faceted application of subject terminology; Bean, C.A., R. Green: Improving subject retrieval with frame representation; Zeng, M.L., Y. Chen: Features of an integrated thesaurus management and search system for the networked environment; Hudon, M.: Subject access to Web resources in education; Qin, J., J. Chen: A multi-layered, multi-dimensional representation of digital educational resources; Riesthuis, G.J.A.: Information languages and multilingual subject access; Geisselmann, F.: Access methods in a database of e-journals; Beghtol, C.: The Iter Bibliography: International standard subject access to medieval and renaissance materials (400-1700); Slavic, A.: General library classification in learning material metadata: the application in IMS/LOM and CDMES metadata schemas; Cordeiro, M.I.: From library authority control to network authoritative metadata sources; Koch, T., H. Neuroth u. M. Day: Renardus: Cross-browsing European subject gateways via a common classification system (DDC); Olson, H.A., D.B. Ward: Mundane standards, everyday technologies, equitable access; Burke, M.A.: Personal Construct Theory as a research tool in Library and Information Science: case study: development of a user-driven classification of photographs

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 31(2004) no.2, S.117-118 (D. Campbell): "This excellent volume offers 22 papers delivered at an IFLA Satellite meeting in Dublin Ohio in 2001. The conference gathered together information and computer scientists to discuss an important and difficult question: in what specific ways can the accumulated skills, theories and traditions of librarianship be mobilized to face the challenges of providing subject access to information in present and future networked information environments? The papers which grapple with this question are organized in a surprisingly deft and coherent way. Many conferences and proceedings have unhappy sessions that contain a hodge-podge of papers that didn't quite fit any other categories. As befits a good classificationist, editor I.C. McIlwaine has kept this problem to a minimum. The papers are organized into eight sessions, which split into two broad categories. The first five sessions deal with subject domains, and the last three deal with subject access tools. The five sessions and thirteen papers that discuss access in different domains appear in order of in creasing intension. The first papers deal with access in multilingual environments, followed by papers an access across multiple vocabularies and across sectors, ending up with studies of domain-specific retrieval (primarily education). Some of the papers offer predictably strong work by scholars engaged in ongoing, long-term research. Gerard Riesthuis offers a clear analysis of the complexities of negotiating non-identical thesauri, particularly in cases where hierarchical structure varies across different languages. Hope Olson and Dennis Ward use Olson's familiar and welcome method of using provocative and unconventional theory to generate meliorative approaches to blas in general subject access schemes. Many papers, an the other hand, deal with specific ongoing projects: Renardus, The High Level Thesaurus Project, The Colorado Digitization Project and The Iter Bibliography for medieval and Renaissance material. Most of these papers display a similar structure: an explanation of the theory and purpose of the project, an account of problems encountered in the implementation, and a discussion of the results, both promising and disappointing, thus far. Of these papers, the account of the Multilanguage Access to Subjects Project in Europe (MACS) deserves special mention. In describing how the project is founded an the principle of the equality of languages, with each subject heading language maintained in its own database, and with no single language used as a pivot for the others, Elisabeth Freyre and Max Naudi offer a particularly vivid example of the way the ethics of librarianship translate into pragmatic contexts and concrete procedures. The three sessions and nine papers devoted to subject access tools split into two kinds: papers that discuss the use of theory and research to generate new tools for a networked environment, and those that discuss the transformation of traditional subject access tools in this environment. In the new tool development area, Mary Burke provides a promising example of the bidirectional approach that is so often necessary: in her case study of user-driven classification of photographs, she user personal construct theory to clarify the practice of classification, while at the same time using practice to test the theory. Carol Bean and Rebecca Green offer an intriguing combination of librarianship and computer science, importing frame representation technique from artificial intelligence to standardize syntagmatic relationships to enhance recall and precision.
The papers discussing the transformation of traditional tools locate the point of transformation in different places. Some, like the papers an DDC, LCC and UDC, suggest that these schemes can be imported into the networked environment and used as a basis for improving access to networked resources, just as they improve access to physical resources. While many of these papers are intriguing, I suspect that convincing those outside the profession will be difficult. In particular, Edward O'Neill and his colleagues, while offering a fascinating suggestion for preserving the Library of Congress Subject Headings and their associated infrastructure by converting them into a faceted scheme, will have an uphill battle convincing the unconverted that LCSH has a place in the online networked environment. Two papers deserve mention for taking a different approach: both Francis Devadason and Maria Ines Cordeiro suggest that we import concepts and techniques rather than realized schemes. Devadason argues for the creation of a faceted pre-coordinate indexing scheme for Internet resources based an Deep Structure indexing, which originates in Bhattacharyya's Postulate-Based Permuted Subject Indexing and in Ranganathan's chain indexing techniques. Cordeiro takes up the vitally important role of authority control in Web environments, suggesting that the techniques of authority control be expanded to enhance user flexibility. By focusing her argument an the concepts rather than an the existing tools, and by making useful and important distinctions between library and non-library uses of authority control, Cordeiro suggests that librarianship's contribution to networked access has less to do with its tools and infrastructure, and more to do with concepts that need to be boldly reinvented. The excellence of this collection derives in part from the energy, insight and diversity of the papers. Credit also goes to the planning and forethought that went into the conference itself by OCLC, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section, and the Program Committee, headed by editor I.C. McIlwaine. This collection avoids many of the problems of conference proceedings, and instead offers the best of such proceedings: detail, diversity, and judicious mixtures of theory and practice. Some of the disadvantages that plague conference proceedings appear here. Busy scholars sometimes interpret the concept of "camera-ready copy" creatively, offering diagrams that could have used some streamlining, and label boxes that cut off the tops or bottoms of letters. The papers are necessarily short, and many of them raise issues that deserve more extensive treatment. The issue of subject access in networked environments is crying out for further synthesis at the conceptual and theoretical level. But no synthesis can afford to ignore the kind of energetic, imaginative and important work that the papers in these proceedings represent."

0.009652025 = product of:
  0.043434113 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=3608,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In this position paper we propose a document-centric middleware component called Living Documents to support context-aware information retrieval in distributed communities. A Living Document acts as a micro server for a document which contains computational services, a semi-structured knowledge repository to uniformly store and access context-related information, and finally the document's digital content. Our initial prototype of Living Documents is based an the concept of mobile agents and implemented in Java and XML.

Source

Gaining insight from research information (CRIS2002): Proceedings of the 6th International Conference an Current Research Information Systems, University of Kassel, August 29 - 31, 2002. Eds: W. Adamczak u. A. Nase

0.009246422 = product of:
  0.0416089 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 5591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=5591,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 5591, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5591)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 5591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=5591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5591, 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=5591)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose - To explore the use of middleware to provide access to a virtual catalogue via Z39.50, allowing its integration with other services. To consider issues arising from the cross-database search process and the problem of interoperability between systems. Design/methodology/approach - Middleware was used to establish a Z39.50 server for an existing virtual union catalogue, InforM25. The Copac physical union catalogue was used to carry out cross-database search tests, investigating the value of query transformation by the middleware and illustrating many of the issues associated with interoperability in cross-database searching. Findings - The test results demonstrate the viability and benefits of using middleware to allow the integration of virtual catalogues with other services. The results also illustrate the range of issues affecting the performance of the virtual catalogue, with supporting evidence from the use of the Copac physical union catalogue for cross-database searching via Z39.50. In particular the discussion highlights the issue of semantic interoperability, as well as emphasising the value of centralised virtual catalogue support. Research limitations/implications - The research was limited to work on a specific virtual union catalogue, that is InforM25, but the results highlight issues with general relevance in the development of any virtual catalogue. The need for more work on response times in the virtual union catalogue is apparent, along with the related issue of result set post processing. Originality/value - This paper provides a practical demonstration of the issues important to those involved in making their local catalogue accessible to services, and individuals, outside their own institution, as well as those working on virtual union catalogue development.

Source

Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.120-144

0.009053368 = product of:
  0.040740155 = sum of:
    0.011833867 = weight(_text_:of in 6071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011833867 = score(doc=6071,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 6071, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6071)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 6071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=6071,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 6071, 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=6071)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

As an important support tool in science research, specialized information systems are rapidly changing their character. The potential for improvement compared with today's usual systems is enormous. This fact will be demonstrated by means of two problem complexes: - WWW search engines, which were developed without any government grants, are increasingly dominating the scene. Does the WWW displace information centers with their high quality databases? What are the results we can get nowadays using general WWW search engines? - In addition to the WWW and specialized databases, scientists now use WWW library catalogues of digital libraries, which combine the catalogues from an entire region or a country. At the same time, however, they are faced with highly decentralized heterogeneous databases which contain the widest range of textual sources and data, e.g. from surveys. One consequence is the presence of serious inconsistencies in quality, relevance and content analysis. Thus, the main problem to be solved is as follows: users must be supplied with heterogeneous data from different sources, modalities and content development processes via a visual user interface without inconsistencies in content development, for example, seriously impairing the quality of the search results, e. g. when phrasing their search inquiry in the terminology to which they are accustomed

0.009049862 = product of:
  0.040724378 = sum of:
    0.025168357 = weight(_text_:applications in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025168357 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.14592396 = fieldWeight in 1221, 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=1221)
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=1221,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In fall 2004, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Digital Library (NSDL) program made new grants in three tracks: Pathways, Services, and Targeted Research. Together with projects started in fiscal years (FY) 2000-03 these new grants continue the development of a national digital library of high quality educational resources to support learning at all levels in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). By enabling broad access to reliable and authoritative learning and teaching materials and associated services in a digital environment, the National Science Digital Library expects to promote continual improvements in the quality of formal STEM education, and also to serve as a resource for informal and lifelong learning. Proposals for the FY05 funding cycle are due April 11, 2005, and the full solicitation is available at <http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf05545>. Two NSF directorates, the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) and the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) have both provided significant co-funding for over twenty projects in the first four years of the program, illustrating the NSDL program's facilitation of the integration of research and education, an important strategic objective of the NSF. In FY2004, the NSDL program introduced a new Pathways track, replacing the earlier Collections track. The Services track strongly encouraged two particular types of projects: (1) selection services and (2) usage development workshops. * Pathways projects provide stewardship for educational content and services needed by a broad community of learners; * Selection services projects identify and increase the high-quality STEM educational content known to NSDL; and * Usage development workshops engage new communities of learners in the use of NSDL and its resources.
These three elements reflect a refinement of NSDL's initial emphasis on collecting educational resources, materials, and other digital learning objects, towards enabling learners to "connect" or otherwise find pathways to resources appropriate to their needs. Projects are also developing both the capacities of individual users and the capacity of larger communities of learners to use and contribute to NSDL. For the FY2004 funding cycle, one hundred forty-four proposals sought approximately $126.5 million in total funding. Twenty-four new awards were made with a cumulative budget of approximately $10.2 million. These include four in the Pathways track, twelve in the Services track, and eight in the Targeted Research track. As in the earlier years of the program, sister directorates to the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) are providing significant co-funding of projects. Participating directorates for FY2004 are GEO and MPS. Within EHR, the Advanced Technological Education program and the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research are also co-funding projects. Complete information on the technical and organizational progress of NSDL including links to current Standing Committees and community workspaces may be found at <http://nsdl.org/community/nsdlgroups.php>. All workspaces are open to the public, and interested organizations and individuals are encouraged to learn more about NSDL and join in its development. Following is a list of the new FY04 awards displaying the official NSF award number, the project title, the grantee institution, and the name of the Principal Investigator (PI). A condensed description of the project is also included. Full abstracts are available from the NSDL program site (under Related URLs see the link to NSDL program site (under Related URLs see the link to Abstracts of Recent Awards Made Through This Program.) The projects are displayed by track and are listed by award number. In addition, seven of these projects have explicit relevance to applications to pre-K to 12 education (indicated with a * below). Four others have clear potential for application to the pre-K to 12 arena (indicated with a ** below).

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.

0.008395672 = product of:
  0.037780523 = sum of:
    0.017343773 = weight(_text_:systems in 4097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017343773 = score(doc=4097,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.14405504 = fieldWeight in 4097, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4097)
    0.020436753 = weight(_text_:software in 4097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020436753 = score(doc=4097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.13149375 = fieldWeight in 4097, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4097)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Eine wichtige Aufgabe der Informationsverarbeitung als fachbezogene Informatik besteht darin, die neue Entwicklung der Informationstechnologie zu verfolgen, sich damit auseinanderzusetzen, inwieweit diese Entwicklung die Forschung sowie die Anwendung in der Geisteswissenschaft unterstützen kann, und die daraus entstandenen Konzepte zu realisieren. Das im Jahre 1999 veröffentlichte Nachrichtenaustauschprotokoll SOAP (Abkürzung für Simple Object Access Protocol) entstand vor dem Hintergrund der schnellen Entwicklung der Vernetzung besonders des Internets. In den letzten Jahren hat SOAP große Aufmerksamkeit auf sich gezogen, weil man mit SOAP einige Beschränkungen der vorhandenen Techniken überwinden kann und damit die Leistungsfähigkeit der Software sowie Anwendung wesentlich verbessern kann. Ziel der Magisterarbeit liegt darin, einerseits theoretisch über die Möglichkeit des Einsetzens von SOAP in der Bibliotheksanwendung zu untersuchen, andererseits das Ergebnis der theoretischen Untersuchung in die Praxis umzusetzen, d.h. das Konzept eines Bibliotheksanwendungssystems mit dem Einsatz von SOAP zusammenzustellen und es zu realisieren. SOAP ist ein Nachrichtenprotokoll, das die Kommunikationen zwischen entfernten Systemen unterstützt. In der Arbeit wird durch eine theoretische Untersuchung gezeigt, dass SOAP sich besonders gut für die in der stark heterogenen Umgebung wie Internet verteilte Anwendung eignet. Eine der häufig von dem Bibliotheksystem über das Internet angebotenen verteilten Anwendungen ist der verteilte OPAC. Ein verteilter OPAC bietet eine verteilte Suche in mehreren Bibliothekssystemen an. Die meisten bisherigen Bibliothekssysteme realisieren die verteilte Suche vorwiegend mit der Unterstützung des Protokolls Z39.50. Durch die theoretische Untersuchung ist es zu sehen, dass mit dem Einsatz von SOAP einerseits der Arbeitsaufwand in der Realisierung bzw. die Verwaltung des Systems verglichen mit dem Z39.50 reduziert, andererseits die Funktionalität des Systems stark erweitert wird, dass eine Zusammenarbeit des Bibliothekssystems mit den Systemen anderer Bereiche leicht realisiert werden kann. Als praktisches Projekt der Magisterarbeit wird ein System der verteilten OPACs mit SOAP als Nachrichtenaustauschprotokoll entwickelt.

0.008161413 = product of:
  0.036726356 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=4866,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4866, 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=4866)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, 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=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Information subject gateways provide targeted discovery services for their users, giving access to Web resources selected according to quality and subject coverage criteria. Information gateways recognise that they must collaborate on a wide range of issues relating to content to ensure continued success. This report is informed by discussion of content activities at the 1999 Imesh Workshop. The author considers the implications for subject based gateways of co-operation regarding coverage policy, creation of metadata, and provision of searching and browsing across services. Other possibilities for co-operation include working more closely with information providers, and diclosure of information in joint metadata registries

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54

0.007171934 = product of:
  0.032273702 = sum of:
    0.011833867 = weight(_text_:of in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011833867 = score(doc=4591,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4591, 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=4591)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article addresses a crucial issue in the digital library environment: how to support effective interaction of users with heterogeneous and distributed information resources. In particular, this study compared usability, user preference, effectiveness, and searching behaviors in systems that implement interaction with multiple databases as if they were one (integrated interaction) in a experiment in the TREC environment. 28 volunteers were recruited from the graduate students of the School of Communication, Information & Library Studies at Rutgers University. Significantly more subjects preferred the common interface to the integrated interface, mainly because they could have more control over database selection. Subjects were also more satisfied with the results from the common interface, and performed better with the common interface than with the integrated interface. Overall, it appears that for this population, interacting with databases through a common interface is preferable on all grounds to interacting with databases through an integrated interface. These results suggest that: (1) the general assumption of the information retrieval (IR) literature that an integrated interaction is best needs to be revisited; (2) it is important to allow for more user control in the distributed environment; (3) for digital library purposes, it is important to characterize different databases to support user choice for integration; and (4) certain users prefer control over database selection while still opting for results to be merged

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.456-468

0.0064770123 = product of:
  0.029146556 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 6959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=6959,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 6959, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6959)
    0.013269759 = product of:
      0.026539518 = sum of:
        0.026539518 = weight(_text_:22 in 6959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026539518 = score(doc=6959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 6959, 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=6959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The success of the World Wide Web Shows that we can access, search, and retrieve information from globally distributed databases. lf a database, such as a library catalog, has some sort of Web-based front end, we can type its URL into a Web browser and use its HTML-based forms to search for items in that database. Depending an how well the query conforms to the database content, how the search engine interprets the query, and how the server formats the results into HTML, we might actually find something usable. While the first two issues depend an ourselves and the server, an the Web the latter falls to the mercy of HTML, which we all know as a great destroyer of information because it codes for display but not for content description. When looking at an HTML-formatted display, we must depend an our own interpretation to recognize such entities as author names, titles, and subject identifiers. The Web browser can do nothing but display the information. lf we want some other view of the result, such as sorting the records by date (provided it offers such an option to begin with), the server must do it. This makes poor use of the computing power we have at the desktop (or even laptop), which, unless it involves retrieving more records, could easily do the result Set manipulation that we currently send back to the server. Despite having personal computers wich immense computational power, as far as information retrieval goes, we still essentially use them as dumb terminals.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler

0.0045415005 = product of:
  0.040873505 = sum of:
    0.040873505 = weight(_text_:software in 3405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040873505 = score(doc=3405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 3405, 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=3405)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Der Kooperative Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV) betreibt mit dem KOBV-Portal (http://digibib.kobv.de) seit Weihnachten 2003 ein fächerübergreifendes Informationsportal im Internet. Das Portal basiert auf der MetaLib-Software der Firma Exlibris, die gemeinsam mit dem KOBV entwickelt wurde. Das KOBV-Portal strebt den Nachweis sämtlicher konventioneller und elektronischer Bibliotheksbestände der Bibliotheken in der Region BerlinBrandenburg an. Darüber hinaus sollen im KOBV-Portal fachwissenschaftlich relevante, frei über das Internet zugängliche Ressourcen nachgewiesen werden. Personalisierte Dienste ermöglichen den Nutzerinnen die Speicherung von Suchanfragen, Suchergebnissen, e-Zeitschriftenlisten sowie das Anlegen von Ressourcenlisten, die - bei Anmeldung im KOBV-Portal - auf dem Server gespeichert werden und somit für weitere Sitzungen im KOBV-Portal erneut zur Verfügung stehen. Darüber hinaus existieren mehrere Exportfunktionen, die eine Weiterverwendung der Recherche-Ergebnisse in eigenen wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten ermöglichen (Ausgabe von Literaturlisten in Endnote, Ausdruck von Ergebnislisten bzw. Zuschicken von Ergebnislisten als E-Mail).

0.0037845836 = product of:
  0.034061253 = sum of:
    0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034061253 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 1967, 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=1967)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag werden Webservices als Träger für die Vernetzung unterschiedlicher Informationsangebote vorgestellt. Am Beispiel der technischen Realisierung für das Meta-Portal vascoda.de beschreibt er den Einsatz von Webservices im FIZ Karlsruhe. Erklärt werden das Konzept von Webservices, ihre Funktionsweise und die softwaretechnischen Schritte für die nahtlose Zusammenführung der teilnehmenden Webservice-Anbieter und Webservice-Nutzer. Nach Art einer Gebrauchsanweisung wird auf die in diesem Zusammenhang verwendeten Standardprotokolle und Programmiersprachen eingegangen. Webservices werden definiert als verteilte, lose gekoppelte und wiederverwendbare Software-Komponenten, die über XML-basierte Standard-Protokolle miteinander kommunizieren und auf vier wesentlichen Komponenten beruhen: dem Simple ObjectAccess Protocol (SOAP), der Webservice Description Language (WSDL), der Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (UDDI) und Standard-Internetprotkollen (HTTP[S], SMTP u.a.). Verteilte, unterschiedliche Softwaresysteme nahtlos so zusammenzuführen, dass sie sich gegenseitig verstehen und ihre Daten automatisch austauschen können, ist ein altes Ziel der Softwareentwicklung. Mit dem Konzept der Webservices scheint es sich nun verwirklichen zu lassen. Webservices bieten technisch zunächst prinzipiell nichts Neues: die Möglichkeiten, Funktionalitäten entfernter' Programme in lokale Anwendungen einzubauen, findet man seit Jahren in verschiedensten Technologien und Systemen (z.B. Remote Procedure Calls als Bestandteil von Unix, CORBA, COM, usw.). Die große Chance von Webservices liegt darin, dass sie auf akzeptierten und praktizierten Standards aufbauen und ihr relativ einfaches Konzept weithin unterstützt wird.