Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = 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)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper analyses the development of the knowledge structures provided as aids to users in searching the Internet. Specific focus is given to web directories, thesauri and gateways and portals. The paper assumes that users need to be able to access information in two ways - to locate information on a subject directly in response to a search term and to be able to browse so as to familiarize themselves with a domain or to refine a request. Emphasis is to the browsing aspect. Background and development are addressed. Structures are analyzed, problems are identified, and future directions discussed.

Date

27.12.2008 15:56:22

0.01103789 = product of:
  0.04415156 = sum of:
    0.04415156 = product of:
      0.08830312 = sum of:
        0.08830312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08830312 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 22(2000), S.49-75

0.010340675 = product of:
  0.0413627 = sum of:
    0.0413627 = product of:
      0.0827254 = sum of:
        0.0827254 = weight(_text_:access in 573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0827254 = score(doc=573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5242754 = fieldWeight in 573, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.009461049 = product of:
  0.037844196 = sum of:
    0.037844196 = product of:
      0.07568839 = sum of:
        0.07568839 = weight(_text_:22 in 6224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07568839 = score(doc=6224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6224, 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=6224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:17:00

0.008863435 = product of:
  0.03545374 = sum of:
    0.03545374 = product of:
      0.07090748 = sum of:
        0.07090748 = weight(_text_:access in 5577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07090748 = score(doc=5577,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 5577, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5577)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Standardization of subject access to bibliographic information systems is an important factor in national and international networking, cooperation, and exchange of bibliographic data. Standards, guidelines, and rules are needed to ensure consistency and quality in the design, development and application of indexing languages to documents and their citations. This paper defines the terms "standards" and "guidelines" as they apply to subject analysis used in library catalogs and bibliographic databases. It identifies and discusses the most important national and international "standards" that influence subject access to bibliographic data. Included are the tools of subject cataloging which have become standards in their own right, as well as formally prepared and approved guidelines. Each "standard" or "guideline" is described in terms of its origins, characteristics, and control and its importance in the design of bibliographic retrieval systems. Emphasis is given to the importance of the relationship between alphabetic and systematic access.

0.007386196 = product of:
  0.029544784 = sum of:
    0.029544784 = product of:
      0.059089568 = sum of:
        0.059089568 = weight(_text_:access in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059089568 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0059089568 = product of:
  0.023635827 = sum of:
    0.023635827 = product of:
      0.047271654 = sum of:
        0.047271654 = weight(_text_:access in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047271654 = score(doc=538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Subject access to information is recognized as one of the most important features of information storage and retrieval systems. It is a feature which requires information professionals to have expertise in retrieval, subject cataloging, classification, indexing and system design. This essay examines the knowledge base needed for professional careers in the subject control of information. It identifies some of the problems involved in education and training graduates for working in this area and attempts to pose some solutions to these problems

0.005518945 = product of:
  0.02207578 = sum of:
    0.02207578 = product of:
      0.04415156 = sum of:
        0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04415156 = score(doc=638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 638, 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=638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:09:50

0.0031336974 = product of:
  0.01253479 = sum of:
    0.01253479 = product of:
      0.02506958 = sum of:
        0.02506958 = weight(_text_:access in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02506958 = score(doc=6091,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.15887943 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Darin auch Berichte über die deutschen Beiträge: "The third paper by Magda Heiner-Freiling, of the Deutsche Bibliothek and Patrice Landry of the Swiss National Library focuses on "The Use of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) for the Organization of the National Bibliographies: Switzerland and Germany/Austria." It discusses the reasons that led to the use of DDC for this purpose, and deals with the difficulties of adopting a common approach using the Second Dewey Summary (100 divisions). It also describes the challenges for the three libraries of incorporating German requirements into the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie. Their concerns have been brought about by the introduction of national bibliographies to the web environment and the need to "undertake studies on how to bring electronic documents under bibliographic control." The issues were intensified by the need to arrange national bibliographies in a "userfriendly" way and to ensure efficient subject access to records. In addition there had been "a long-standing IFLA and UNESCO recommendation to arrange bibliography according to an international classification scheme." These events provided the background for the decision by the three libraries to work together to produce a common Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) arrangement for the national bibliographies of Austria, Germany and Switzerland. The position of each library is described. The Swiss National Library undertook a major reorganization of its operations and structures which included a study to select a classification scheme for its collection - a study which also looked at the national bibliography. For the Swiss national bibliography, this evaluation led to the replacement of an indexing system based on UDC with the Dewey Second Summary (100 Divisions) with modifications for Swiss history and geography. In 2004 Die Deutsche Bibliothek (DDB) decided "to use a new scheme based on DDC" for the new Deutsche Nationalbibliografie (DNB) and the Austrian national bibliography followed suit in the same year. These moves can be attributed to two factors. The first was the impending publication of a German translation of DDC. Secondly, since 1982 the three libraries had been using two different systems, a situation that placed constraints on the exchange of data for use by the bibliographies. There was growing international acceptance of DDC and the change to DDC would improve bibliographic services and facilitate cooperation with foreign national libraries.
Originally, it was decided that the Dewey Second Summary (100 Divisions) would be a suitable level of access for the bibliography and that the standard DDC organization should be used. In many cases there was a good match between DDC and the former subject categories, in all fields of science and in subjects where literary warrant was high However this was not suitable throughout. Among the areas cited as problems are some of the places where UDC and DDC differ (e.g. the 800s). With respect to music, a deeper level of division than the Dewey outline was needed (specifically in 782 and 784-788 sections on printed and recorded music). In 2002 and 2003 an analysis of the distribution of documents with the 100 Divisions was conducted. Documents were not spread evenly in all classes and while some classes could be merged, others could benefit for the use of more specific numbers. Also, there were discipline based problems, for example in the melding of all branches of engineering. As well, there was a lack of correspondence with modern disciplines such as engineering, electronics, mechanical engineering and environmental technology which had been separate subject categories prior to 2004. Another troublesome discipline was archaeology. Moreover the Second Summary level introduced in 2004 proved to be too broad and would not satisfy users' bibliographic needs. In some cases, in classes containing a variety of topics, subtopics were invisible (e.g. 790 Sports, games and entertainment). As a result, beginning in 2006 the DNB will use full DDC notations. However, the problem would not be insurmountable. The authors concluded that - the cooperation was an interesting are rewarding experience. Ultimately each national - library could adjust and adapt the classification for its own needs and the work done was a good basis for further developments Further, it strengthened support for the German version of DDC to be published in 2006."