Search (79 results, page 1 of 4)

0.105090946 = product of:
  0.21018189 = sum of:
    0.21018189 = sum of:
      0.1554811 = weight(_text_:tagging in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1554811 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.5218336 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
      0.054700784 = weight(_text_:22 in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054700784 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 695, 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=695)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15

0.08745811 = product of:
  0.17491622 = sum of:
    0.17491622 = product of:
      0.34983245 = sum of:
        0.34983245 = weight(_text_:tagging in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.34983245 = score(doc=309,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1741256 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.

Theme

Social tagging

0.052545473 = product of:
  0.105090946 = sum of:
    0.105090946 = sum of:
      0.07774055 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07774055 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.2609168 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.027350392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027350392 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = 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

0.038870275 = product of:
  0.07774055 = sum of:
    0.07774055 = product of:
      0.1554811 = sum of:
        0.1554811 = weight(_text_:tagging in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1554811 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5218336 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A discussion document produced following a meeting the Users of Book Industry Standards (UBIS) Bibliographic Standards Working Group at the University of London as part of a project to consider the Survey on the use of UK-MARC by Russell Sweeney published in 1991 by the British Library National Bibliographic Service. Considers the suitability, or otherwise, of the UKMARC format for use in OPACs. Summarizes the issues involved, discussing: the UKMARC exchange format, tagging and coding structure (record complexity, analytical entries, non filing indicators), data content (statements of responsibility, main versus added entry) and records standards

0.038870275 = product of:
  0.07774055 = sum of:
    0.07774055 = product of:
      0.1554811 = sum of:
        0.1554811 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1554811 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5218336 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Social tagging

0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.027350392 = product of:
  0.054700784 = sum of:
    0.054700784 = product of:
      0.10940157 = sum of:
        0.10940157 = weight(_text_:22 in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10940157 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7403, 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=7403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.21-31

0.027350392 = product of:
  0.054700784 = sum of:
    0.054700784 = product of:
      0.10940157 = sum of:
        0.10940157 = weight(_text_:22 in 7483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10940157 = score(doc=7483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7483, 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=7483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.133-142

0.024293922 = product of:
  0.048587844 = sum of:
    0.048587844 = product of:
      0.09717569 = sum of:
        0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09717569 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.326146 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the information needs of one user group, public library fiction readers, in order to reveal a design of an online community at the local level. Examination of user-generated metadata can reveal new approaches to information architecture. Design/methodology/approach - A literature review into behaviors of virtual communities; surveying public library readers regarding search behavior characteristics - the survey included a sample "tagging" exercise to determine whether public library communities could create meaningful metadata for retrieval purposes. Findings - The use of relevance as an indicator of tag quality is flawed: in a survey, public library readers "tagged" the novel The Da Vinci Code. The resulting collection of tags provided a richer description of the book than did the social book-related web site www.librarything.com. Tag collections can be broken down into different categories, each reflecting a different "facet" of the novel: character, plot, subject/topic, setting, and genre. Faceted structure to tags enables users to choose the context of the tag to the novel. Research limitations/implications - This research is relevant in the world of social networking sites, online communities, or any other such system where users generate descriptive metadata. Examination of such metadata can reveal facets, which can guide the architect/librarian in the design of a versatile architecture. Originality/value - This research resulted in a manifold design for a public-library-based online community that allowed for the full expression of users' information needs. This research introduces a faceted structure to current approaches for user-generated metadata, adding versatility to search terms.

0.024293922 = product of:
  0.048587844 = sum of:
    0.048587844 = product of:
      0.09717569 = sum of:
        0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09717569 = score(doc=4541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.326146 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to highlight limits to the dominant model of social inclusion under which UK public libraries operate, to analyse how and to what extent processes of socio-cultural exclusion emerge in the subject representation and discoverability of "non-dominant" resources in public library OPACs, and to consider folksonomy as a solution to any issues raised. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first develops a critique of the dominant model of "inclusion" within UK public libraries, drawing on feminist and critical theories of identity. It then considers how this critique overlaps with and offers fresh insights into major debates within subject indexing, and develops a theoretical rationale for considering the potential of folksonomy to intervene in more inclusive subject-indexing design. A user-based critical interpretive methodology which understands OPACs as texts open to multiple interpretations is developed, and a comparative reading of standard OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy is undertaken to evaluate the discoverability and subject representation of LGBTQ and ethnic minority resources. Findings - LibraryThing folksonomy offers benefits over LCSH subject indexing in the discoverability and representation of LGBTQ resources. However, the folksonomy is dominated by US taggers, and this impacts on the tagging of ethnic minority resources. Folksonomy, like traditional indexing, is found to contain its own biases in worldview and subject representation. Originality/value - The importance of subject indexing in developing inclusive library services is highlighted and a new method for evaluating OPACs is developed.

0.024174558 = product of:
  0.048349116 = sum of:
    0.048349116 = product of:
      0.09669823 = sum of:
        0.09669823 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09669823 = score(doc=4368,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:36:10
22. 1.2000 19:41:58

0.023931593 = product of:
  0.047863185 = sum of:
    0.047863185 = product of:
      0.09572637 = sum of:
        0.09572637 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572637 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3628, 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=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bulletin des bibliothèques de France. 34(1989) no.1, S.22-47

0.023931593 = product of:
  0.047863185 = sum of:
    0.047863185 = product of:
      0.09572637 = sum of:
        0.09572637 = weight(_text_:22 in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572637 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5575, 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=5575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Eine Replik zu Auer: OPAC und Zeichensatz (Mitteilungen der VÖB 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22)

0.023931593 = product of:
  0.047863185 = sum of:
    0.047863185 = product of:
      0.09572637 = sum of:
        0.09572637 = weight(_text_:22 in 7584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572637 = score(doc=7584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7584, 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=7584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekare. 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22

0.023931593 = product of:
  0.047863185 = sum of:
    0.047863185 = product of:
      0.09572637 = sum of:
        0.09572637 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572637 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 211, 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=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.10, S.326-330

0.023931593 = product of:
  0.047863185 = sum of:
    0.047863185 = product of:
      0.09572637 = sum of:
        0.09572637 = weight(_text_:22 in 4513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572637 = score(doc=4513,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4513, 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=4513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 3.2000 15:22:58

0.020512793 = product of:
  0.041025586 = sum of:
    0.041025586 = product of:
      0.08205117 = sum of:
        0.08205117 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08205117 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3373, 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=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.020512793 = product of:
  0.041025586 = sum of:
    0.041025586 = product of:
      0.08205117 = sum of:
        0.08205117 = weight(_text_:22 in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08205117 = score(doc=4106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4106, 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=4106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 6437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=6437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6437, 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=6437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.2, S.23-26