Search (166 results, page 1 of 9)

0.010695804 = product of:
  0.04991375 = sum of:
    0.027943838 = weight(_text_:system in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027943838 = score(doc=8192,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
    0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070881573 = score(doc=8192,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 8192, 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=8192)
    0.014881751 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014881751 = score(doc=8192,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Contends that library catalogues need to be seen as merely part of the information seeker's world and proposes the concept of a learning catalogue for library clients which will capture ways in which clients use data thus providing ideas for the further development of the system. Proposes a client centred system which is separated to maintain the bibliographic database from the mode of presentation of that data to the client. The designer of retrieval systems, by accepting that each client brings a unique view of the world's knowledge base to the information seeking activity, needs to acknowledge that this view of the world must be handled uniquely. By overlaying the idea of a learning component, it is possible to see how future queries might be handled more efficiently and the system can grow with client's developing needs

0.010259825 = product of:
  0.04787918 = sum of:
    0.018822279 = weight(_text_:system in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018822279 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
    0.011694863 = weight(_text_:information in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011694863 = score(doc=1428,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017362041 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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

0.009485896 = product of:
  0.044267513 = sum of:
    0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016133383 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070881573 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.021045974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021045974 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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.

0.009485124 = product of:
  0.04426391 = sum of:
    0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013444485 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.009339468 = weight(_text_:information in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009339468 = score(doc=3612,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.021479957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021479957 = score(doc=3612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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

0.009006804 = product of:
  0.04203175 = sum of:
    0.018822279 = weight(_text_:system in 502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018822279 = score(doc=502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 502, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=502)
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 502, 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=502)
    0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017362041 = score(doc=502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 502, 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=502)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

When an institution wishes to automate but does not have the financial resources to implement an online integrated system, one solution is to join forces with other libraries who have similar desires and needs. Since the online database is the foundation of all library automation, a shared database will be necessary in this type of cluster environment. This article discusses some of the problems encountered when bibliographic records are shared by a number of libraries, such as difficulties in information retrieval and bibliographic control. Possible methods of dealing with the problems of joint input and database maintenance are then proposed.

0.006185825 = product of:
  0.043300774 = sum of:
    0.0100241685 = weight(_text_:information in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100241685 = score(doc=1119,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.033276606 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033276606 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0060444204 = product of:
  0.042310942 = sum of:
    0.0072343214 = weight(_text_:information in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072343214 = score(doc=1103,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.035076622 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035076622 = score(doc=1103,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

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

Source

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

0.0057039345 = product of:
  0.02661836 = sum of:
    0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005906798 = score(doc=605,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.012401459 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012401459 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.008310104 = product of:
      0.016620208 = sum of:
        0.016620208 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016620208 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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

0.005676518 = product of:
  0.039735626 = sum of:
    0.029763501 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029763501 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.009972124 = product of:
      0.019944249 = sum of:
        0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019944249 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.0055766683 = product of:
  0.039036676 = sum of:
    0.013260729 = weight(_text_:information in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013260729 = score(doc=377,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.025775949 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025775949 = score(doc=377,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.005169683 = product of:
  0.03618778 = sum of:
    0.024553634 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024553634 = score(doc=5365,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0044453703 = product of:
  0.020745061 = sum of:
    0.010755588 = weight(_text_:system in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010755588 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.0033413896 = weight(_text_:information in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033413896 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.0066480828 = product of:
      0.0132961655 = sum of:
        0.0132961655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0132961655 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.0044307336 = product of:
  0.031015133 = sum of:
    0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016133383 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
    0.014881751 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014881751 = score(doc=5569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5569)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

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

0.0043430096 = product of:
  0.030401066 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.024553634 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024553634 = score(doc=606,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0041423123 = product of:
  0.028996186 = sum of:
    0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017362041 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.0041423123 = product of:
  0.028996186 = sum of:
    0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017362041 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.0038896988 = product of:
  0.018151928 = sum of:
    0.009411139 = weight(_text_:system in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009411139 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1217929 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
    0.0029237159 = weight(_text_:information in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029237159 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
    0.0058170725 = product of:
      0.011634145 = sum of:
        0.011634145 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011634145 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Footnote

Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."

0.0038702567 = product of:
  0.027091796 = sum of:
    0.018822279 = weight(_text_:system in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018822279 = score(doc=362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=362)
    0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008269517 = score(doc=362,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 362, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=362)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The information in a manual card catalogue cannot be transformed into a machine-readable file without some cleanup work. Correcting problem records only as they are reported by patrons or discovered by staff, in the course of normal workflow, can mean that incomplete, incorrect or obsolete information is left in the database for long periods of time. A large database editing project, while it requires a major investment of staff time, can clean up the online file and improve patron access in a relatively short time. Suggests a method which focuses on specific types of catalogue records in the library's online system. Such a database editing project represents an investment in the future that more than justifies the time and effort that go into it

0.003839683 = product of:
  0.02687778 = sum of:
    0.009339468 = weight(_text_:information in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009339468 = score(doc=5567,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
    0.017538311 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017538311 = score(doc=5567,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.0037893022 = product of:
  0.026525114 = sum of:
    0.006682779 = weight(_text_:information in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006682779 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4564, 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=4564)
    0.019842334 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019842334 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Explains the Biblos project for the retrospective conversion of the catalogues of the Biblioteca de Catalunya. This consists of the scanning of the catalogue cards, the retrieval of the images via the Web, and the subsequent codification of the information into MARC format. Describes the objectives, methodology, processes and other factors contributing to its fulfilment