Search (8141 results, page 408 of 408)

3.3640515E-4 = product of:
  0.0030276463 = sum of:
    0.0030276463 = product of:
      0.0060552927 = sum of:
        0.0060552927 = weight(_text_:web in 6119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060552927 = score(doc=6119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.06309982 = fieldWeight in 6119, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.013671875 = fieldNorm(doc=6119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Chapter 13 an DL evaluation merges criteria from traditional library evaluation with criteria from user interface design and information retrieval. Quantitative, macro-evaluation techniques are emphasized, and again, some DL evaluation projects and reports are illustrated. A very brief chapter an the role of librarians in the DL follows, emphasizing that traditional reference skills are paramount to the success of the digital librarian, but that he should also be savvy in Web page and user interface design. A final chapter an research trends in digital libraries seems a bit incoherent. It mentions many of the previous chapters' topics, and would possibly be better organized if written as summary sections and distributed among the other chapters. The book's breadth is quite expansive, touching an both fundamental and advanced topics necessary to a well-rounded DL education. As the book is thoroughly referenced to DL and DL-related research projects, it serves as a useful starting point for those interested in more in depth learning. However, this breadth is also a weakness. In my opinion, the sheer number of research projects and papers surveyed leaves the authors little space to critique and summarize key issues. Many of the case studies are presented as itemized lists and not used to exemplify specific points. I feel that an introductory text should exercise some editorial and evaluative rights to create structure and organization for the uninitiated. Case studies should be carefully Chosen to exemplify the specific issues and differences and strengths highlighted. It is lamentable that in many of the descriptions of research projects, the authors tend to give more historical and funding Background than is necessary and miss out an giving a synthesis of the pertinent details.