Search (78 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.08 
    0.07727912 = product of:
  0.15455824 = sum of:
    0.15455824 = sum of:
      0.09808913 = weight(_text_:web in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09808913 = score(doc=2905,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056469105 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der Artikel betrachtet anhand einer Studie zum Benutzerverhalten bei der Online-Katalogrecherche den gegenwärtigen Stellenwert und das zukünftige Potential der Web-OPACs. Dabei werden zunächst die Ergebnisse einer quantitativen Logfile-Analyse sowie qualitativer Benutzertests erörtert, bevor aktuelle Entwicklungen der Webtechnologie, die unter den Schlagworten Web 2.0 und Web 3.0 propagiert werden, im Zusammenhang mit der Online-Recherche und der Entwicklung neuartiger Suchverfahren kurz diskutiert werden.
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
  2. Hillmann, D.I.: "Parallel universes" or meaningful relationships : envisioning a future for the OPAC and the net (1996) 0.05 
    0.052756835 = product of:
  0.10551367 = sum of:
    0.10551367 = sum of:
      0.049044564 = weight(_text_:web in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049044564 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056469105 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Over the past year, innumerable discussions on the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the newly burgeoning World WideWeb have occured in many libraries and in virtually every library related discussion list. Rumors and speculation abound, some insisting that SGML will replace USMARC "soon," others maintaining that OPACs that haven't migrated to the Web will go the way of the dinosaurs.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103
  3. Hahn, U.; Schulze, M.: Katalogerweiterungen, Mashups und Elemente der Bibliothek 2.0" in der Praxis : der Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek der Helmut-Schmidt-Universität (IHSU) Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg (2009) 0.04 
    0.03863956 = product of:
  0.07727912 = sum of:
    0.07727912 = sum of:
      0.049044564 = weight(_text_:web in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049044564 = score(doc=2672,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, 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=2672)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die verschiedenen unter dem Schlagwort "Bibliothek 2.0" zusammengefassten neuen Dienste und Komponenten wie etwa Wikis, Tagging-Systeme und Blogs sind seit einiger Zeit in aller Munde und dringen über Fortbildungsveranstaltungen, Konferenzen und Publikationsorgane immer mehr in das deutschsprachige Bibliothekswesen ein. Darüber hinaus gibt es öffentlich geförderte Projekte zu bibliothekarischen 2.0-Themen und sogar ein Projekt, welches sich explizit einen 2.0-Katalog zum Ziel gesetzt hat. In diesem Beitrag soll es nun nicht um die Vorstellung eines weiteren Projekts im Dienste des Themas "Bibliothek 2.0" gehen, ebenso hat dieser Beitrag nicht den Anspruch, die Diskussion über die möglichen Vor- oder Nachteile dieser Thematik auf theoretischer Ebene voranzubringen. Vielmehr wird hier ganz praktisch aus Sicht einer kleinen Universitätsbibliothek, der Bibliothek der Helmut-SchmidtUniversität (HSU) - Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, aufgezeigt, wie das Thema "Web/Bibliothek 2.0" durchaus neben und in Unterstützung von weiteren nutzerorientierten Servicedienstleistungen auch in kleinen Schritten positive Auswirkungen für die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer haben kann. Der Focus wird dabei auf dem zentralen Arbeits- und Rechercheinstrument der Bibliotheksnutzer liegen, dem Bibliothekskatalog. Speziell wird es darum gehen, wie auf relativ einfache Art und Weise durch Anwendung verschiedener Elemente anderer Dienste und Anbieter sowie das Aufgreifen von Schnittstellen und wenig aufwendigen Verbesserungen, Mehrwert für die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer zu erzielen ist. Ein zentraler Begriff bei fast allen Überlegungen, die im Zusammenhang mit der Verbesserung und Anreicherung des Kataloges stehen, war und ist das Thema "Mash-up". Unter Mashups - ein Begriff, der gerade im Zusammenhang mit dem Thema "Web 2.0" im deutschsprachigen Raum eingeführt und adaptiert wurde - wird das Verfahren bezeichnet, Web-Inhalte neu zu kombinieren. Dabei nutzt man bei und für Mashups offene "APIs" (Application Programming Interfaces, also offene Programmierschnittstellen), die von anderen Web-Anwendungen zur Verfügung gestellt werden.
    Date
    22. 2.2009 19:40:38
  4. Homan, P.A.: Library catalog notes for "bad books" : ethics vs. responsibilities (2012) 0.03 
    0.03297302 = product of:
  0.06594604 = sum of:
    0.06594604 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."
    Date
    27. 9.2012 14:22:00
  5. Hafter, R.: ¬The performance of card catalogs : a review of research (1979) 0.03 
    0.028234553 = product of:
  0.056469105 = sum of:
    0.056469105 = product of:
      0.11293821 = sum of:
        0.11293821 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11293821 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    3.10.2000 20:48:22
  6. Tennant, R.: ¬The print perplex : building the future catalog (1998) 0.03 
    0.028234553 = product of:
  0.056469105 = sum of:
    0.056469105 = product of:
      0.11293821 = sum of:
        0.11293821 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11293821 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24
  7. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.03 
    0.026378417 = product of:
  0.052756835 = sum of:
    0.052756835 = sum of:
      0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024522282 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity
    Date
    17. 6.2015 14:40:22
  8. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03 
    0.026378417 = product of:
  0.052756835 = sum of:
    0.052756835 = sum of:
      0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024522282 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = 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)
    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
  9. Voss, J.: LibraryThing : Web 2.0 für Literaturfreunde und Bibliotheken (2007) 0.02 
    0.024149723 = product of:
  0.048299447 = sum of:
    0.048299447 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=1847,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
      0.017646596 = weight(_text_:22 in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017646596 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken Bereits früh setzte sich Tim Spalding für eine Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken ein. Zum Eintragen von neuen Büchern in LibraryThing können zahlreiche Bibliothekskataloge ausgewählt werden, die via Z39.50 eingebunden werden - seit Oktober 2006 ist auch der GBV dabei. Im April 2007 veröffentlichte Tim Spalding mit LibraryThing for Libraries ein Reihe von Webservices, die Bibliotheken in ihre OPACs einbinden können.4 Ein Webservice ist eine Funktion, die von anderen Programmen über das Web aufgerufen werden kann und Daten zurückliefert. Bereits seit Juni 2006 können über verschiedene offene LibraryThing-Webservices unter Anderem zu einer gegebenen ISBN die Sprache und eine Liste von ISBNs anderer Auflagen und Übersetzungen ermittelt werden, die zum gleichen Werk gehören (thinglSBN). Damit setzt LibraryThing praktisch einen Teil der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) um, die in bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Fachkreisen bereits seit Anfang der 1990er diskutiert werden, aber bislang nicht so Recht ihre Umsetzung in Katalogen gefunden haben. Die Information darüber, welche Bücher zum gleichen Werk gehören, wird von der LibraryThing-Community bereitgestellt; jeder Benutzer kann einzelne Ausgaben mit einem Klick zusammenführen oder wieder trennen. Vergleiche mit dem ähnlichen Dienst xISBN von OCLC zeigen, dass sich thinglSBN und xISBN gut ergänzen, allerdings bietet LibraryThing seinen Webservice im Gegensatz zu OCLC kostenlos an. Neben Empfehlungen von verwandten Büchern ist es im Rahmen von LibraryThing for Libraries auch möglich, die von den Nutzern vergebenen Tags in den eigenen Katalog einzubinden. Ein Nachteil dabei ist allerdings die bisherige Übermacht der englischen Sprache und dass nur selbständige Titel mit ISBN berücksichtigt werden. Die VZG prüft derzeit, in welcher Form LibraryThing for Libraries am besten in GBV-Bibliotheken umgesetzt werden kann. Es spricht allerdings für jede einzelne Bibliothek nichts dagegen, schon jetzt damit zu experimentieren, wie der eigene OPAC mit zusätzlichen Links und Tags von LibraryThing aussehen könnte. Darüber hinaus können sich auch Bibliotheken mit einem eigenen Zugang als Nutzer in LibraryThing beteiligen. So stellt beispielsweise die Stadtbücherei Nordenham bereits seit Ende 2005 ihre Neuzugänge im Erwachsenenbestand in einer Sammlung bei LibraryThing ein.
    Beispiel für die Anwendung von LibraryThing for Libraries im Katalog des Waterford Institute of Technology (): Zu einer ISBN werden auf Basis der in LibraryThing gesammelten Daten andere Auflagen und Übersetzungen, ähnliche Bücher und Tags eingeblendet. Soziale Software lebt vom Mitmachen Vieles spricht dafür, dass LibraryThing auf dem besten Weg ist, sich zu einem der wichtigsten Web 2.0-Dienste für die Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken zu entwickeln. Wie schon bei Wikipedia gibt es allerdings noch viel zu oft Berührungsängste und die Vorstellung, dass sich diese Dienste erst durch Hilfe von Außen in der eigenen Einrichtung einführen ließen. Soziale Software lebt jedoch von der Zusammenarbeit und dem freien Austausch von Gedanken und Informationen. Deshalb hilft nur eins: Ausprobieren und Mitmachen. Ebenso wie Wikipedia schwer zu beurteilen ist, ohne selbst mit anderen Wikipedianern einen Artikel erstellt und diskutiert zu haben, erschließt sich LibraryThing erst vollständig durch eine eigene dort angelegte Büchersammlung. Zum Kennenlernen reicht der kostenlose Zugang und mit 15 $ Jahresgebühr können auch Bibliotheken problemlos bis zu 5.000 Medieneinheiten pro Sammlung einstellen. Wenn Sie erstmal mehr mit Library-Thing vertraut sind, werden Ihnen sicherlich weitere Einsatzmöglichkeiten für Ihre Einrichtung und deren Nutzer einfallen. LibraryThing entwickelt sich beständig weiter und dürfte noch für einige Überraschungen gut sein.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 10:36:23
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  10. Treichler, W.: Katalogisierungsregeln, Kataloge und Benützer in schweizerischen Bibliotheken (1986) 0.02 
    0.021175914 = product of:
  0.042351827 = sum of:
    0.042351827 = product of:
      0.084703654 = sum of:
        0.084703654 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084703654 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8.10.2000 14:22:27
  11. Martin, S.K.: ¬The union catalogue : summary and future directions (1982) 0.02 
    0.021175914 = product of:
  0.042351827 = sum of:
    0.042351827 = product of:
      0.084703654 = sum of:
        0.084703654 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084703654 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 1.2007 14:49:22
  12. Kemp, R.: Catalog/cataloging changes and Web 2.0 functionality : new directions for serials (2008) 0.02 
    0.018582305 = product of:
  0.03716461 = sum of:
    0.03716461 = product of:
      0.07432922 = sum of:
        0.07432922 = weight(_text_:web in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07432922 = score(doc=2254,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents an overview of some of the important recent developments in cataloging theory and practice and online catalog design. Changes in cataloging theory and practice include the incorporation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records principles into catalogs, the new Resource Description and Access cataloging manual, and the new CONSER Standard Record. Web 2.0 functionalities and advances in search technology and results displays are influencing online catalog design. The paper ends with hypothetical scenarios in which a catalog, enhanced by the developments described, fulfills the tasks of finding serials articles and titles.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  13. Clarke, R.I.: Breaking records : the history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data (2015) 0.02 
    0.018582305 = product of:
  0.03716461 = sum of:
    0.03716461 = product of:
      0.07432922 = sum of:
        0.07432922 = weight(_text_:web in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07432922 = score(doc=1877,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.
  14. McCathieNevile, C.; Méndez Rodríguez, E.M.: Library cards for the 21st century (2006) 0.02 
    0.01839171 = product of:
  0.03678342 = sum of:
    0.03678342 = product of:
      0.07356684 = sum of:
        0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356684 = score(doc=240,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents several reflections on the traditional card catalogues and RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is "the" standard for creating the Semantic Web. This work grew out of discussion between the authors after Working Group on Metadata Schemes meeting held at IFLA conference in Buenos Aires (2004). The paper provides an overview of RDF from the perspective of cataloguers, catalogues and library cards. The central theme is the discussion of resource description as a discipline that could be based on RDF. RDF is explained as a very simple grammar, using metadata and ontologies to semantic search and access. RDF Knitting the Semantic Web Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Volume 43, Numbers 3/4 has the ability to enhance 21st century libraries and metadata interoperability in digital libraries, while maintaining the expressive power that was available to librarians when catalogues were physical artefacts.
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as Knitting the Semantic Web
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  15. Jochum, U.: ¬Eine Theorie der Verweisung (1998) 0.02 
    0.017646596 = product of:
  0.03529319 = sum of:
    0.03529319 = product of:
      0.07058638 = sum of:
        0.07058638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07058638 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, 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=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243
  16. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.02 
    0.017646596 = product of:
  0.03529319 = sum of:
    0.03529319 = product of:
      0.07058638 = sum of:
        0.07058638 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07058638 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, 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=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  17. Gödert, W.: Inhaltliche Erschließung mehrbändiger Werke : oder eine Notiz zu der Frage, was wir als bibliographische Identität betrachten wollen? (1994) 0.02 
    0.017646596 = product of:
  0.03529319 = sum of:
    0.03529319 = product of:
      0.07058638 = sum of:
        0.07058638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07058638 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2411, 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=2411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 4.2020 20:22:29
  18. Oberhauser, O.: Teil 2: Ergebnisse der Befragung : Web-Umfrage zur Benutzung von Card-Image Online-Katalogen (2002) 0.02 
    0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=983,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 983, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=983)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  19. Bourdenet, P.: ¬The catalog resisting the Web : an historical perspective (2012) 0.02 
    0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=324,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  20. Majors, R.: Comparative user experiences of next-generation catalogue interfaces (2012) 0.02 
    0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 5571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=5571,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 5571, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    One of the presumed advantages of next-generation library catalogue interfaces is that the user experience is improved-that it is both richer and more intuitive. Often the interfaces come with little or no user-facing documentation or imbedded "help" for patrons based on an assumption of ease of use and familiarity of the experience, having followed best practices in use on the Web. While there has been much gray literature (published on library Web sites, etc.) interrogating these implicit claims and contrasting the new interfaces to traditional Web-based catalogues, this article details a consistent and formal comparison of whether users can actually accomplish common library tasks, unassisted, using these interfaces. The author has undertaken a task-based usability test of vendor-provided next-generation catalogue interfaces and Web-scale discovery tools (Encore Synergy, Summon, WorldCat Local, Primo Central, EBSCO Discovery Service). Testing was done with undergraduates across all academic disciplines. The resulting qualitative data, noting any demonstrated trouble using the software as well as feedback or suggested improvements that the users may have about the software, will assist academic libraries in making or validating purchase and subscription decisions for these interfaces as well as help vendors make data-driven decisions about interface and experience enhancements.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 45
  • d 29
  • sp 2
  • f 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Themes