Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01633556 = product of:
  0.04900668 = sum of:
    0.040141586 = weight(_text_:wide in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040141586 = score(doc=1184,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19327477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043621145 = queryNorm
        0.2076918 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.008865094 = product of:
      0.017730188 = sum of:
        0.017730188 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017730188 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275382 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043621145 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.
This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.013509424 = product of:
  0.08105654 = sum of:
    0.08105654 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08105654 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.252991 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043621145 = queryNorm
        0.320393 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Catalogue 2.0: the future of the library catalogue. Ed. by Sally Chambers

0.012615282 = product of:
  0.07569169 = sum of:
    0.07569169 = weight(_text_:wide in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07569169 = score(doc=46,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19327477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043621145 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The term 'metadata' is becoming commonly used to refer to a variety of types of data which describe other data. A familiar example is bibliographic data, which describes a book or a serial article. Suggests that a routine definiton might be: 'metadata is data which describes attributes of a resource'. Gives some examples before looking at the Dublic Core, a simple response to the challenge of describing a wide range of network resources

0.012615282 = product of:
  0.07569169 = sum of:
    0.07569169 = weight(_text_:wide in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07569169 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19327477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043621145 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The term 'metadata' is becoming commonly used to refer to a variety of types of data which describe other data. A familiar example is bibliographic data, which describes a book or a serial article. Suggests that a rountine definition might be: 'Metadata is data which describes attributes of a resource'. Provides examples to expand on this before looking at the Dublin Core, a simple set of elements for describing a wide range of network resources

0.003940042 = product of:
  0.02364025 = sum of:
    0.02364025 = product of:
      0.0472805 = sum of:
        0.0472805 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0472805 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275382 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043621145 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 127, 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=127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Program. 30(1996) no.1, S.1-22

0.003940042 = product of:
  0.02364025 = sum of:
    0.02364025 = product of:
      0.0472805 = sum of:
        0.0472805 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0472805 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275382 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043621145 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, 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=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13

0.002566505 = product of:
  0.0153990295 = sum of:
    0.0153990295 = weight(_text_:web in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0153990295 = score(doc=1175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14235806 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043621145 = queryNorm
        0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Much progress has been made in aligning library services with changing (and increasingly digital and networked) research and learning environments. At times, however, this progress has been uneven, fragmented, and reactive. As libraries continue to engage with an ever-shifting information landscape, it is apparent that their efforts would be facilitated by a shared view of how library services should be organized and surfaced in these new settings and contexts. Recent discussions in a variety of areas underscore this point: * Institutional repositories: what is the role of the library in collecting, managing, and preserving institutional scholarly output, and what services should be offered to faculty and students in this regard? * Metasearch: how can the fragmented pieces of library collections be brought together to simplify and improve the search experience of the user? * E-learning and course management systems: how can library services be lifted out of traditional library environments and inserted into the emerging workflows of "e-scholars" and "e-learners"? * Exposing library collections to search engines: how can libraries surface their collections in the general Web search environment, and how can users be provisioned with better tools to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape? In each case, there is as yet no shared picture of the library to bring to bear on these questions; there is little consensus on the specific library services that should be expected in these environments, how they should be organized, and how they should be presented.