Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0046638763 = product of:
  0.032647133 = sum of:
    0.026128696 = weight(_text_:source in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026128696 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.16432112 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.006518437 = product of:
      0.013036874 = sum of:
        0.013036874 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013036874 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0320743 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...

0.0037742637 = product of:
  0.05283969 = sum of:
    0.05283969 = weight(_text_:web in 6951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05283969 = score(doc=6951,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 6951, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6951)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0031105594 = product of:
  0.04354783 = sum of:
    0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04354783 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

0.0015520089 = product of:
  0.021728124 = sum of:
    0.021728124 = product of:
      0.04345625 = sum of:
        0.04345625 = weight(_text_:22 in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04345625 = score(doc=245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0320743 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Knjiznice za prihodnost : napredek in sodelovanje : zbornik referatov [ Libraries for the future : development and collaboration: proceedings / Professional conference of Union of associations of Slovene Librarians], Portoroz, October 22-23, 2007; ed. M. Ambrozic

0.0013479512 = product of:
  0.018871317 = sum of:
    0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018871317 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0013479512 = product of:
  0.018871317 = sum of:
    0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018871317 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Social tagging systems, known as "folksonomies," represent an important part of web resource discovery as they enable free and unrestricted browsing through information space. Folksonomies consisting of subject designators (tags) assigned by users, however, have one important drawback: they do not express semantic relationships, either hierarchical or associative, between tags. As a consequence, the use of tags to browse information resources requires moving from one resource to another, based on coincidence and not on the pre-established meaningful or logical connections that may exist between related resources. We suggest that the semantic structure of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) may be used in complementing and supporting tag-based browsing. In this work, two specific questions were investigated: 1) Are terms used as tags in folksonomies included in the UDC?; and, 2) Which facets of UDC match the characteristics of documents or information objects that are tagged in folksonomies? A collection of the most popular tags from Amazon, LibraryThing, Delicious, and 43Things was investigated. The universal nature of UDC was examined through the universality of topics and facets covering diverse human interests which are at the same time interconnected and form a rich and intricate semantic structure. The results suggest that UDC-supported folksonomies could be implemented in resource discovery, in particular in library portals and catalogues.

0.0013479512 = product of:
  0.018871317 = sum of:
    0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018871317 = score(doc=4548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0320743 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The subject description of novels in library catalogues is traditionally limited to the classification number with no description of the story. On the other hand, enthusiastic readers describe novels by tags or reviews in Web services. The purpose of this paper is to analyse readers' descriptions of novels and suggest an enhancement of the catalogue record which would be useful to the readers. Design/methodology/approach - The original research involved a content analysis of tags and reviews written by users in the online bookstore Amazon.com, the online reader advisory service LibraryThing, and the reading promotion project Primorci beremo. The results were compared to previously published results. Findings - The characteristics that most frequently elicit comments by readers are: the names of the creators and literary characters, geographic names and the titles of works, the time frame in which the story takes place, and the literary genre. Their evaluation of a novel was expressed with an opinion, an analysis, or a professional review. Awards were mentioned, and readers often also expressed their personal experience with the novel. They connected the novel with a sequel or series, with otherwise related novels, movies, etc. Often, pictures of the cover and other factual data were included. Research limitations/implications - Research was limited to readers' experiences and descriptions of literary works written in prose. Practical implications - It is suggested that the time frame, genre and awards received should be included in the functional requirements models. Originality/value - Original research was conducted over a longer period of time. The results were re-evaluated and compared to previously published results from studies by different researchers.

9.3120534E-4 = product of:
  0.013036874 = sum of:
    0.013036874 = product of:
      0.026073748 = sum of:
        0.026073748 = weight(_text_:22 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026073748 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0320743 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 103, 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=103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

7.7600445E-4 = product of:
  0.010864062 = sum of:
    0.010864062 = product of:
      0.021728124 = sum of:
        0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021728124 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0320743 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3611, 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=3611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

20. 6.2010 14:22:43