Search (157 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Whitney , C.; Schiff, L.: ¬The Melvyl Recommender Project : developing library recommendation services (2006) 0.04
    0.041728474 = product of:
      0.12518542 = sum of:
        0.08076138 = weight(_text_:line in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08076138 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.37175092 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
        0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011192262 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
        0.033231772 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033231772 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.
  2. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.04
    0.03992078 = product of:
      0.11976234 = sum of:
        0.017696522 = weight(_text_:information in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017696522 = score(doc=54,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
        0.086319745 = weight(_text_:techniques in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086319745 = score(doc=54,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.5058079 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
        0.01574607 = product of:
          0.03149214 = sum of:
            0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03149214 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.038739666 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
    Source
    Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari
  3. Oddy, P.: Future libraries, future catalogues (1996) 0.03
    0.026274227 = product of:
      0.118234016 = sum of:
        0.10768185 = weight(_text_:line in 1988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768185 = score(doc=1988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.4956679 = fieldWeight in 1988, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1988)
        0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 1988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010552166 = score(doc=1988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1988, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1988)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of documentation. 53(1997) no.2, S.200-203 (M. Line); Electronic library. 15(1997) no.2, S.147 (A. O'Brien); Program. 31(1997) no.2, S.199-201 (M.A. Burke); Journal of academic librarianship. 23(1997) no.1, S.54-55 (M. Johansen); Journal of librarianship and information science. 29(1997) no.2, S.110-111 (J.H. Bowman)
  4. Wilson, V.: Catalog users "in the wild" : the potential of an ethnographic approach to studies of library catalogs and their users (2015) 0.02
    0.020324344 = product of:
      0.09145955 = sum of:
        0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009233146 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
        0.0822264 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0822264 = score(doc=2016,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.48182213 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.
  5. Bourdenet, P.: ¬The catalog resisting the Web : an historical perspective (2012) 0.02
    0.01642139 = product of:
      0.07389626 = sum of:
        0.067301154 = weight(_text_:line in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067301154 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
        0.0065951035 = weight(_text_:information in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0065951035 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries are currently seeking to restructure their services and develop new cataloguing standards to position themselves on the web, which has become the main source of information and documents. The current upheaval within the profession is accompanied by the belief that libraries have a major role to play in identifying and supplying content due to their extensive high quality databases, which remain untapped despite efforts to increase catalog performance. They continue to rely on a strategy that has been proven successful since the mid-nineteenth century while seeking other models for their data. Today, they aim to exploit changes brought about by the web to improve content identification. The current intense debate on RDA implementation mirrors this desire for change. The debate is rooted in past efforts and yet tries to incite radical changes as it provides for interoperability from the creation of records through an object modeling in line with web standards and innovations. These innovations are presented through an historical perspective inspired by writings by librarians who are entrusted with helping in the development of bibliographic description standards.
  6. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs, symbols,and canons : The epistemology of the work (2001) 0.02
    0.015193845 = product of:
      0.0683723 = sum of:
        0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01582825 = score(doc=1119,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
        0.05254405 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05254405 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.
  7. Bergman, O.; Gradovitch, N.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Beyth-Marom, R.: Folder versus tag preference in personal information management (2013) 0.01
    0.0148465205 = product of:
      0.06680934 = sum of:
        0.011423056 = weight(_text_:information in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011423056 = score(doc=1103,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
        0.055386286 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055386286 = score(doc=1103,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, 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
  8. Stoker, D.: Computer cataloguing in retrospect (1997) 0.01
    0.014010208 = product of:
      0.04203062 = sum of:
        0.009326885 = weight(_text_:information in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009326885 = score(doc=605,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
        0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01958201 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
        0.013121725 = product of:
          0.02624345 = sum of:
            0.02624345 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02624345 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.038739666 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 29(1997) no.4, S.175-177
  9. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.01
    0.013942866 = product of:
      0.0627429 = sum of:
        0.046996824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046996824 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
        0.01574607 = product of:
          0.03149214 = sum of:
            0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03149214 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.038739666 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  10. Cochrane, P.A.: 34th UIUC clinic highlights visualizing subject access (1997) 0.01
    0.013697612 = product of:
      0.061639253 = sum of:
        0.020938806 = weight(_text_:information in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020938806 = score(doc=377,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
        0.040700447 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040700447 = score(doc=377,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Reports on the 34th Annual Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, held 2-4 Mar 1997 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The clinic was entitled 'Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources'. Summarizes the following individual sessions: Visual browsing for information retrieval; Hypostatizing data collections, especially bibliographic; Simultaneous searching of distributed information and subject repositories on the WWW; Information filtering from multiple sources; Thesauri in the full text world; The role of controlled vocabulary in visualizing document associations; Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval; Spatial abilities and visualizations; Using IODyne as an indexing tool; Knowledge structures for information visualizing; Visualizing digital libraries; what role for the OPAC?; How will we provide subject access in the Interspace of the 21st century?; Natural language processing based information retrieval; Building and accessing vocabulary resources for networked resource discovery and navigation; Using electronic services to become an interbetworked business; and Conference Wrap up
  11. Klic, L.; Miller, M.; Nelson, J.K.; Pattuelli, C.; Provo, A.: ¬The drawings of the Florentine painters : from print catalog to linked open data (2017) 0.01
    0.013561998 = product of:
      0.061028987 = sum of:
        0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011192262 = score(doc=4105,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
        0.049836725 = weight(_text_:techniques in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049836725 = score(doc=4105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.2920283 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    The Drawings of The Florentine Painters project created the first online database of Florentine Renaissance drawings by applying Linked Open Data (LOD) techniques to a foundational text of the same name, first published by Bernard Berenson in 1903 (revised and expanded editions, 1938 and 1961). The goal was to make Berenson's catalog information-still an essential information resource today-available in a machine-readable format, allowing researchers to access the source content through open data services. This paper provides a technical overview of the methods and processes applied in the conversion of Berenson's catalog to LOD using the CIDOC-CRM ontology; it also discusses the different phases of the project, focusing on the challenges and issues of data transformation and publishing. The project was funded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and organized by Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Catalog: http://florentinedrawings.itatti.harvard.edu. Data Endpoint: http://data.itatti.harvard.edu.
  12. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.01
    0.012697958 = product of:
      0.057140812 = sum of:
        0.0387704 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0387704 = score(doc=5365,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
        0.018370414 = product of:
          0.03674083 = sum of:
            0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03674083 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.038739666 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  13. Sauperl, A.; Saye, J.D.: Have we made any progress? : catalogues of the future revisited (2009) 0.01
    0.011767481 = product of:
      0.052953664 = sum of:
        0.011423056 = weight(_text_:information in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011423056 = score(doc=2843,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
        0.04153061 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04153061 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.
  14. Salmon, S.R.: ¬The union catalogue functions, objectives and techniques (1982) 0.01
    0.011074828 = product of:
      0.09967345 = sum of:
        0.09967345 = weight(_text_:techniques in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09967345 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.5840566 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
  15. White, R.W.: Interactions with search systems (2016) 0.01
    0.010814253 = product of:
      0.048664138 = sum of:
        0.0147471 = weight(_text_:information in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0147471 = score(doc=3612,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
        0.033917036 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033917036 = score(doc=3612,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, 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.
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval
    Subject
    Information Retrieval
  16. Gödert, W.; Lepsky, K.: Semantische Umfeldsuche im Information Retrieval (1998) 0.01
    0.010667455 = product of:
      0.048003547 = sum of:
        0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009233146 = score(doc=606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
        0.0387704 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0387704 = score(doc=606,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  17. Hedman, T.: Utkast till en deskriptiv teori for katalogsokning / informationsatervinning (1997) 0.01
    0.010195802 = product of:
      0.045881107 = sum of:
        0.018466292 = weight(_text_:information in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018466292 = score(doc=1428,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
        0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027414814 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Library information searching lacks a descriptive theory which explains how a user decides to borrow one book and not another. Such theory should act as a reference framework against which cataloguing rules and the classification system can be measured, and should be based on 2 complementary perspectives, described in detail: modern classification theory, which explains what cataloguing and classification involve, and philosophy of science, which explains what happens when the user meets the catalogue record. Catalogue information must answer which work is described, and why this work on the subject is chosen. A descriptive theory is especially necessary for knowing what new information to add to the catalogue. Discusses this in a subsequent article
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: Draft of a descriptive theory of catalogue searching / information retrieval
  18. Solis, A.Q.; Navarrete, O.A.: Medidas de calidad en la creacion de catalogos de bibliotecas (1998) 0.01
    0.010174495 = product of:
      0.045785226 = sum of:
        0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027414814 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
        0.018370414 = product of:
          0.03674083 = sum of:
            0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03674083 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.038739666 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2825, 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=2825)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    A discussion of the importance of clear cataloguing policies and routines as the basis of quality control, in relation to the methods used in the College of Mexico Library. The fundamental principle is to prevent errors occuring rather than to correct them subsequently. Indices of quality and effiency in relation to errors which do and do not affect retrieval, established through monthly review of samples of the work of each cataloguer, are used to monitor activities and ensure high standards. This process, essentially collaborative, promotes an overall culture of quality
    Date
    30. 1.1999 19:22:45
  19. Randall, N.B.: Spelling errors in the database : shadow or substance? (1999) 0.01
    0.010174495 = product of:
      0.045785226 = sum of:
        0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027414814 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
        0.018370414 = product of:
          0.03674083 = sum of:
            0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03674083 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.038739666 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  20. Julien, C.-A.; Guastavino, C.; Bouthillier, F.: Capitalizing on information organization and information visualization for a new-generation catalogue (2012) 0.01
    0.009431166 = product of:
      0.042440243 = sum of:
        0.0147471 = weight(_text_:information in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0147471 = score(doc=5567,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
        0.027693143 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027693143 = score(doc=5567,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Subject searching is difficult with traditional text-based online public access library catalogues (OPACs), and the next-generation discovery layers are keyword searching and result filtering tools that offer little support for subject browsing. Next-generation OPACs ignore the rich network of relations offered by controlled subject vocabulary, which can facilitate subject browsing. A new generation of OPACs could leverage existing information-organization investments and offer online searchers a novel browsing and searching environment. This is a case study of the design and development of a virtual reality subject browsing and information retrieval tool. The functional prototype shows that the Library of Congress subject headings (LCSH) can be shaped into a useful and usable tree structure serving as a visual metaphor that contains a real world collection from the domain of science and engineering. Formative tests show that users can effectively browse the LCSH tree and carve it up based on their keyword search queries. This study uses a complex information-organization structure as a defining characteristic of an OPAC that goes beyond the standard keyword search model, toward the cutting edge of online search tools.
    Theme
    Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 120
  • d 27
  • f 3
  • sp 2
  • a 1
  • chi 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 136
  • el 12
  • m 8
  • r 6
  • s 5
  • b 3
  • x 2
  • More… Less…