Search (111 results, page 1 of 6)

0.06306136 = product of:
  0.12612271 = sum of:
    0.10839584 = weight(_text_:open in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10839584 = score(doc=4105,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5170568 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
    0.01772687 = product of:
      0.03545374 = sum of:
        0.03545374 = weight(_text_:access in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03545374 = score(doc=4105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Drawings of The Florentine Painters project created the first online database of Florentine Renaissance drawings by applying Linked Open Data (LOD) techniques to a foundational text of the same name, first published by Bernard Berenson in 1903 (revised and expanded editions, 1938 and 1961). The goal was to make Berenson's catalog information-still an essential information resource today-available in a machine-readable format, allowing researchers to access the source content through open data services. This paper provides a technical overview of the methods and processes applied in the conversion of Berenson's catalog to LOD using the CIDOC-CRM ontology; it also discusses the different phases of the project, focusing on the challenges and issues of data transformation and publishing. The project was funded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and organized by Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Catalog: http://florentinedrawings.itatti.harvard.edu. Data Endpoint: http://data.itatti.harvard.edu.

0.046847057 = product of:
  0.09369411 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
    0.02068135 = product of:
      0.0413627 = sum of:
        0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0413627 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5187, 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=5187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Without reform and adaptation to contemporary technology, existing paper libraries may become increasingly marginalized and eventually little more than book museums. Proposes a new method to organize access to paper resources by using relational database management systems technology to change libraries' existing data structures and concepts of organization of materials in order to create an open, shared, easy-to-use and cooperatively maintained system. Without substantial proactive change, users familiar with accessing and manipulating digital materials will become very intolerant of the anomalies and archaisms of libraries' card-based automated catalogues. Outlines the benefits of such a system and lists considerations which should be taken into account in its design

0.046847057 = product of:
  0.09369411 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=5568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
    0.02068135 = product of:
      0.0413627 = sum of:
        0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0413627 = score(doc=5568,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5568, 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=5568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As of spring semester 2010, Georgia Southern University began using a VuFind implementation as the default access to the library catalogue on the library Web page while maintaining a secondary link to the traditional Voyager "classic" catalogue. VuFind is an open-source product that has been adopted and adapted by all the state universities and colleges in the state of Georgia. For approximately ten years, Georgia libraries have used Voyager as their catalogue, and it remains available to users as the "classic" search option. This report examines the local VuFind implementation compared to the more traditional Voyager implementation, emphasizing the differences in the searching capabilities of each.

0.029501611 = product of:
  0.118006445 = sum of:
    0.118006445 = weight(_text_:open in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118006445 = score(doc=4593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5629002 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Dieser Artikel beschreibt die vom Autor entwickelte und an der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln (USB) seit 1997 in verschiedenen Projekten eingesetzte Open-Source-Portalsoftware OpenBib. Nach einem grundlegenden Einblick in die Ursprünge, Technik und konkreten Einsatzgebiete an der USB werden weitergehende Funktionen des Portals erläutert, wie RSS-Feeds, Mashups, Tagging, Tag-Clouds, Nutzungsanalysen, Drilldowns sowie Kataloganreicherung. Viele davon sind charakteristisch für einen OPAC 2.0.

0.026769744 = product of:
  0.05353949 = sum of:
    0.041721575 = weight(_text_:open in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041721575 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.0118179135 = product of:
      0.023635827 = sum of:
        0.023635827 = weight(_text_:access in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023635827 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.026557926 = product of:
  0.053115852 = sum of:
    0.044252418 = weight(_text_:open in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044252418 = score(doc=1271,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.21108757 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.008863435 = product of:
      0.01772687 = sum of:
        0.01772687 = weight(_text_:access in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01772687 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.11234473 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

Content

Vgl. dazu auch die Forderungen der Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF), Katalogdaten grundsätzlich zur weiteren Nutzung freizugeben, unter: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2007/12/15/open-knowledge-foundation-fordert-freie-katalogdaten/.

0.024432644 = product of:
  0.09773058 = sum of:
    0.09773058 = sum of:
      0.047271654 = weight(_text_:access in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047271654 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 3053, 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=3053)
      0.050458927 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050458927 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3053, 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=3053)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines in detail the author cataloguing practices adopted by the Italian National Library Service, as set out in its 1995 Cataloguing Guide (Guida SBN), and discusses how far these practices accord with the standard 1979 RICA author cataloguing rules. Since the author headings prescribed by RICA include personal names, corporate names and titles, this survey looks at all such SBN catalogue entries having an access point function. Presents many examples of standard and variant forms of heading, and reviews control procedures

Date

22. 2.1999 20:40:57

0.02224338 = product of:
  0.08897352 = sum of:
    0.08897352 = sum of:
      0.03545374 = weight(_text_:access in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03545374 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.053519778 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053519778 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article first compares and contrasts the essential, fundamental differences between traditional and digital information mediums. It then reexamines the role of the online public access catalog (OPAC), refines the definition of library's catalog, and advocates the addition of Internet resources within the OPAC. Next, the article describes the building of the Alex Catalog, a catalog of Internet resources in the in the form of MARC records. Finally, this article outlines a process of integrating the futher inclusion of other Internet resources into OPACs as well as some of the obstacles such a process manifests.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170

0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Creativity is now a core requirement for successful organizations. Libraries, like all organizations, need to produce and utilize new ideas to improve user service and experiences. With changes in cataloging such as Resource Description and Access (RDA), the opportunity to rethink cataloging practices is here now. Everyone has creative potential, although catalogers may have both a personality and work environment that make it more difficult. To be able to maximize creative capacity, catalogers need the proper work environment, support from their organization, and a plan for accomplishing creative goals. Given that environment, catalogers may create ideas that will shape the future. (RDA).

Date

29. 5.2015 11:08:22

0.018329866 = product of:
  0.073319465 = sum of:
    0.073319465 = sum of:
      0.041782632 = weight(_text_:access in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041782632 = score(doc=605,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.018329866 = product of:
  0.073319465 = sum of:
    0.073319465 = sum of:
      0.041782632 = weight(_text_:access in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041782632 = score(doc=190,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.01825319 = product of:
  0.07301276 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 2561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=2561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 2561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2561)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Im digitalen Zeitalter erschöpft sich das Aufgabenspektrum der Archive, Bibliotheken und Museen längst nicht mehr in der Sammlung, Erschließung, Bewahrung und Zugänglichmachung physischer Sammlungsbestände. Es bezieht die Digitalisierung ebenso mit ein wie die Zusammenführung der Digitalisate in übergreifenden Internetportalen. Der folgende Beitrag bietet einen Überblick zum Einsatz der Open-Source-Software VuFind, welche als Discovery-Tool für digitalisierte Kulturgüter vorgestellt wird. Erläutert werden nicht nur die Anforderungen, die sich für die Erschließung und das Metadatenmanagement ergeben, sondern auch die Chancen einer engeren Kooperation von Archiven, Bibliotheken und Museen im digitalen Zeitalter. Abgerundet wird der Beitrag um Ausführungen zum Portal digitales thüringen, welches die Anwendung VuFind-basierter Discovery-Technologie im Kontext der Digitalisierung von Kulturgut beispielhaft illustriert.

0.01825319 = product of:
  0.07301276 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 2576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=2576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 2576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2576)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die HeBIS-Verbundzentrale bietet das HeBIS Discovery System (HDS) als Dienstleistung für interessierte Mitgliedsbibliotheken an. Der Service beinhaltet eine Rechercheoberfläche mit Suchunterstützung durch eine moderne Suchmaschine, Erweiterung des Suchraums mit Inhalten aus Datenbanken und Volltexten durch einen Resource Discovery Service und alle gewohnten Funktionen eines lokalen OPACs. Technisch besteht HDS aus dem Open-Source-OPAC VuFind, der Suchmaschine Solr, dem Discovery-Service EDS und dem ReDi-Linkresolver. Dieser Beitrag geht auf die Projektstruktur und die Erfahrungen bei der kooperativen Entwicklung ein.

0.01825319 = product of:
  0.07301276 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 5515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=5515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 5515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5515)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.015645592 = product of:
  0.062582366 = sum of:
    0.062582366 = weight(_text_:open in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062582366 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.014750806 = product of:
  0.059003223 = sum of:
    0.059003223 = weight(_text_:open in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059003223 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.2814501 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der KOBV setzt bereits seit 2005 Suchmaschinentechnologie in verschiedenen Entwicklungsprojekten erfolgreich ein. Zusammen mit der Bibliothek des Wissenschaftsparks Albert Einstein wurde nun der Prototyp einer "Bibliothekssuchmaschine" auf Basis erprobter Open-Source-Technologien aus dem Java-Umfeld (wie Tomcat, Jakarta-Commons, Log4J usw.) als web-basierte Anwendung realisiert, deren Suchmaschinenkern auf der ebenfalls als freie Open-Source Java-Variante erhältlichen Search-Engine-Library Lucene4 basiert. Die erste Version der Bibliothekssuchmaschine läuft seit Ende Oktober im Echtbetrieb. Ziel des Pilotprojektes war die Konzeptionierung, Spezifikation und Implementierung einer neuen, benutzerfreundlichen Suchoberfläche zum schnellen Auffinden fachwissenschaftlich relevanter Daten und Informationen, sowohl in bibliothekseigenen Beständen als auch in zusätzlichen Quellen. Vor dem spezifischen Hintergrund der Spezialbibliothek werden dabei nicht nur Kataloginhalte google-like findbar gemacht, sondern der Suchraum "Katalog" um weitere für die Informationsvermittlung auf dem Campus relevante und spezifische fachwissenschaftliche Inhalte als zusätzliche Suchräume erschlossen. Die neue Anwendung dient dem schnellen Ersteinstieg und leitet die Nutzer dann an die jeweiligen Quellen weiter.

0.014663892 = product of:
  0.058655567 = sum of:
    0.058655567 = sum of:
      0.033426106 = weight(_text_:access in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033426106 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.21183924 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.025229463 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025229463 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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