Search (290 results, page 1 of 15)

0.12769927 = product of:
  0.25539854 = sum of:
    0.20553584 = weight(_text_:java in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20553584 = score(doc=1761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.46662933 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.4404692 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
    0.04986269 = weight(_text_:und in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04986269 = score(doc=1761,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.14685147 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.33954507 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Google und Konsorten haben das Suchverhalten unserer Nutzer grundlegend verändert. Erwartet wird eine Suche, die einfach, unkompliziert und übersichtlich sein soll. Längst haben Bibliotheken und Anbieter von Bibliothekssystemen darauf reagiert und die Suchoberflächen entschlackt. Trotzdem sehen viele Bibliothekskataloge nach wie vor wie "Bibliothekskataloge" aus. Letztlich versuchen viele der Suchmasken immer noch die Vielfalt der erfassten Metadaten und die daraus resultierenden differenzierten Suchmöglichkeiten den Nutzern auf den ersten Blick nahe zu bringen. Das geht, was zahlreiche Studien belegen, häufig an den Bedürfnissen der Nutzer vorbei: Diese wünschen sich einen einfachen und schnellen Zugriff auf die für sie relevante Information. Bibliothekskataloge sind längst nicht mehr nur Bestandsverzeichnisse, sondern Zugangssysteme zur Vielfalt der von der Bibliothek vermittelten Informationen. Auch hier bieten Systemhäuser inzwischen Lösungen an, bei denen im Sinn einer verteilten Suche weitere Quellen mit einbezogen werden können. Im Folgenden soll der Lösungsweg vorgestellt werden, den die Bibliothek des Wissenschaftsparks Albert Einstein in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Kooperativen Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV) eingeschlagen hat, um mit diesen beiden veränderten Grundvoraussetzungen für ihr Serviceangebot umzugehen. Die Bibliothek des Wissenschaftsparks Albert Einstein - eine gemeinsame Bibliothek des GeoForschungsZentrums Potsdam, der Forschungsstelle Potsdam des Alfred Wegener Instituts für Polar- und Meeresforschung (zwei Helmholtz-Zentren) und des Potsdam-Instituts für Klimafolgenforschung (ein Leibniz-Institut) - ist eine Spezialbibliothek mit dem thematischen Schwerpunkt Geowissenschaften auf dem größten Campus der außeruniversitären Forschung in Brandenburg, dem Wissenschaftspark Albert Einstein auf dem Telegrafenberg in Potsdam.
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.

0.109001845 = product of:
  0.43600738 = sum of:
    0.43600738 = weight(_text_:java in 2137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.43600738 = score(doc=2137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46662933 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.9343763 = fieldWeight in 2137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2137)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07570953 = product of:
  0.30283812 = sum of:
    0.30283812 = weight(_text_:heading in 1458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30283812 = score(doc=1458,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.7561223 = fieldWeight in 1458, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1458)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The online catalogue can provide the user with efficient and effective access through a variety of access points. New interests in subject heading is indicated. Keyword access and free text searching are considered alternatice methods. An investigation is suggested into the symbiotic relationship between classification and subject heading

0.07570953 = product of:
  0.30283812 = sum of:
    0.30283812 = weight(_text_:heading in 1502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30283812 = score(doc=1502,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.7561223 = fieldWeight in 1502, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1502)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper recognizes the limitations of the existing file of Library of Congress authority records for subject heading assignment and validation. It makes recommendations for a new machine-readable file of authority records for topical subdivisions and for enhancements to the existing subject authority file. The recommended changes qould enable online systems to assist in subject heading formulation and verify, with limited assistance by human intermediaries, the individual components of subdivided headings. A study of subdivided subject headings in a large bibliographic database forms the basis of the recommendations

0.0669184 = product of:
  0.2676736 = sum of:
    0.2676736 = weight(_text_:heading in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2676736 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.668324 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For truly effective subject access, it is essential that books on any given topic be brought together consistently under the same subject heading. With the advent of online catalogs, this goal has assumed new importance but has also become easier to achieve

0.06624585 = product of:
  0.2649834 = sum of:
    0.2649834 = weight(_text_:heading in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2649834 = score(doc=654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Assigned topical and geographic subject headings from a sample of 3.814 bibliographic records in the University of Michigan Library's catalog were analyzed to determine the degree of match with LCSH, 10th edition and to idetify types of heading conflicts that lend themselves to automatic subject authority control. The findings showed a surprising degree of agreement: 44 percent of headings matched LCSH 10th completely. For headings without subdivisions, the match was 88,4 percent. Since 93,6 percent of the topical subdivisions that did not match LCSH were found on the free-floating lists, some consideration should be given to developing a machine-readable file of free-floating subdivisons for matching purposes.

0.053534724 = product of:
  0.2141389 = sum of:
    0.2141389 = weight(_text_:heading in 5829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2141389 = score(doc=5829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.5346592 = fieldWeight in 5829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5829)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes research into unsuccessful searches of OPACs by analyzing searches and computer messages, explaining how data was collected and analysed in a study at Adelphi University in 1994. Discusses ways of bridging the gap between users' formulations of subjects and the terms used in authority files and subject heading schemes

0.046842884 = product of:
  0.18737154 = sum of:
    0.18737154 = weight(_text_:heading in 3066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18737154 = score(doc=3066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 3066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3066)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There are many problems with subject access in online catalogues. One of the major problems is information overload. One kind of this occurs when the display consists of a lengthy segment of the subject index in which a single subject heading is followed by a bewildering array of subdivisons, qualifications and phrases. This problem can be alleviated by presenting the subject index in a summary form that the user can expand to provide more detail as appropriate. Such an approach could be realized within the context of a direct manipulation style of user interface. In particular, a manner of displaying information called 'fisheye views' could be applied to the subject index display

0.046842884 = product of:
  0.18737154 = sum of:
    0.18737154 = weight(_text_:heading in 4243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18737154 = score(doc=4243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 4243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4243)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.046842884 = product of:
  0.18737154 = sum of:
    0.18737154 = weight(_text_:heading in 3775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18737154 = score(doc=3775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 3775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3775)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Browse searching of online catalogs and electronic indexes is a popular means of retrieving information, but some subject heading lists are so extensive that browsing them can be difficult and time-consuming. This resaerch tested one way of presenting a browse interface to reduce the amount of scanning of subject headings required. It found that a hierarchical presentation of headings reduced the amount of scanning required by more than 50% without any reduction in the effectiveness of the search. Better browsable displays of this sort can improve the efficiency of searching but appear not to alter effectivenenss

0.046842884 = product of:
  0.18737154 = sum of:
    0.18737154 = weight(_text_:heading in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18737154 = score(doc=4018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Surveys the status of catalguing practice in university libraries in 3 Asian developing countries, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Saudia Arabia. Examines the extent of the usage of international cataloguing tools such as cataloguing codes (AACR, ISBD), classification schemes (DDC, LCC) and subject heading lists (Sears, LCSH). Results indicate that there is an overall uniformity in the use of such tools, with a trend towards automation of cataloguing services with more access points for catalogue searching. Online catalogues are also replacing all traditional catalogue forms (card, printed, and microform). Findings show that, in using information technology in technical services, Malaysian university libraries are more advanced than those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

0.046842884 = product of:
  0.18737154 = sum of:
    0.18737154 = weight(_text_:heading in 451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18737154 = score(doc=451,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 451, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=451)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority control is discussed from two viewpoints: The need for bibliographic records relating to a name to be brought together under one form of the name; and the need for cross references to direct a user to a heading from variant forms of the name. Data from two research projects that support the need for choosing one form of name are summarized. The author's study of user requests that resulted in no "hits" in an online catalog is described. Data are given to show that for only 6.4% of these requests would our current methods of cross referencing in authority records have been helpful, and that two system programs would have given much greater assistance.

0.040151045 = product of:
  0.16060418 = sum of:
    0.16060418 = weight(_text_:heading in 2788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16060418 = score(doc=2788,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 2788, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2788)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of an analysis of 205 randomly selected records from the OCLC OLUC, to test the assumption that online catalogues have greatly improved subject searching capabilities, over card catalogues, by making other fields in the records searchable as subject access points (SAPs). Results showed considerable overlap (duplication) among the SAPs provided by the title, subject heading and classification number fields. On average, little more than 4 unique, unduplicated access points were found per record. Where title and classification number fields do add some access points not provided by subject headings, the increase is less than many librarians might be expected. Suggests that OPACs might outperform catalogues more in precision than in recall by allowing greater discrimination in searching; terms from different fields may be combined; titles offer greater specifity; searches can be limited by date, language or other criteria

0.040151045 = product of:
  0.16060418 = sum of:
    0.16060418 = weight(_text_:heading in 6358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16060418 = score(doc=6358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 6358, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6358)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a questionnaire survey of UK academic libraries to determine the level of use of online public access catalogues (OPACs) and the development of inhouse subject indexes. 75 respondents reported having commercial systems and 7 reported inhouse systems. Data includes: named systems in use and numbers of libraries using each system; percentages of bibliographic records in machine readable format; types of materials; and record formats (UKMARC, LCMARC etc.) Reports the most common access points for searching the OPACs (author, keyword), methods of generating terms to be used for subject searching, subject heading sources (LCSH, MeSH, PRECIS) and classification schemes (Dewey (DDC), UDC). Results show that all universities and polytechnics now have OPACs and only the smaller colleges do not. OPACs are moving towards comprehensive covergae of academic library stocks with the MARC record the most popular format. The 3 main subject access strategies involve: LCSH, inhouse strategies, and strategies not based on controlled terminolgy. Draws heavily on the results of an earlier survey by Fran Slack (Vine 72(1988) Nov., S.8.12)

0.040151045 = product of:
  0.16060418 = sum of:
    0.16060418 = weight(_text_:heading in 574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16060418 = score(doc=574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Central to subject searching is the match between user vocabulary and the headings from Library of Congress Subject-Headings (LCSH) used in a library catalog. This paper evaluates previous matching studies, proposes a detailed list of matching categories, and tests LCSH in a study using these categories. Exact and partial match categories are defined for single LCSH and multiple LCSH matches to user expressions. One no-match category is included. Transaction logs from ORION, UCLA's online Information system, were used to collect user expressions for a comparison of LCSH and user language. Results show that single LCSH headings match user expressions exactly about 47% of the time; that single subject heading matches, including exact matches, comprise 74% of the total; that partial matches, to both single and multiple headings, comprise about 21% of the total; and that no match occurs 5% of the time.

0.027250461 = product of:
  0.109001845 = sum of:
    0.109001845 = weight(_text_:java in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.109001845 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.46662933 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.23359407 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

- User Interface hostility - Recently I used the Library catalogs of two public libraries, new products from two major library vendors. A link an one catalog said "Knowledge Portal," whatever that was supposed to mean. Clicking an it brought you to two choices: Z39.50 Bibliographic Sites and the World Wide Web. No public library user will have the faintest clue what Z39.50 is. The other catalog launched a Java applet that before long froze my web browser so badly I was forced to shut the program down. Pick a popular book and pretend you are a library patron. Choose three to five libraries at random from the lib web-cats site (pick catalogs that are not using your system) and attempt to find your book. Try as much as possible to see the system through the eyes of your patrons-a teenager, a retiree, or an older faculty member. You may not always like what you see. Now go back to your own system and try the same thing. - What should the public see? - Our users deserve an information system that helps them find all different kinds of resources-books, articles, web pages, working papers in institutional repositories-and gives them the tools to focus in an what they want. This is not, and should not be, the library catalog. It must communicate with the catalog, but it will also need to interface with other information systems, such as vendor databases and web search engines. What will such a tool look like? We are seeing the beginnings of such a tool in the current offerings of cross-database search tools from a few vendors (see "Cross-Database Search," LJ 10/15/01, p. 29ff). We are in the early stages of developing the kind of robust, userfriendly tool that will be required before we can pull our catalogs from public view. Meanwhile, we can begin by making what we have easier to understand and use."

0.026767362 = product of:
  0.10706945 = sum of:
    0.10706945 = weight(_text_:heading in 384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10706945 = score(doc=384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.2673296 = fieldWeight in 384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=384)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This short guide is intended to help librarians and OPAC system designers to make decisions about the design of displays of more than one subject heading. The authors stress that they offer guidance rather than standards or prescriptions; their clear prose is cautious and even the number of recommendations is limited. A 12-page introduction contrasts the "structural approach" and "strict alphabetical approach" to filing, showing examples and stating arguments for each. 7 chapters cover display of subdivisions, inverted headings, display of qualified headings, arrangement of numerical headings, display of subjects interfiled with names and titles, punctuation and messages to the user. Within each chapter, questions involving choices between two or more approaches are followed by brief statements of current practice (LC rules, ALA rules, and systems in existing OPACs) extensive examples demonstrating such choices, and arguments for and against each. The authors warn against ever assuming that the user knows the needed subject headings, and acknowledge that the best OPAC design often depends on the setting and on the user's understanding of the system. Although the topic may be beyond the purview of the authoring committee, the discussion here makes one yearn for interactive OPACs that can analyze the user's needs and provide appropriate guidance to whatever system is adopted

0.026767362 = product of:
  0.10706945 = sum of:
    0.10706945 = weight(_text_:heading in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10706945 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.40051475 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.2673296 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: Introduction -- Focusing on user needs :new ways of subject access in Czechia -- Subject analysis and indexing :an "Italian version" of the analytico-synthetic model -- Subject search in Italian OPACs :an opportunity in waiting? -- Semiautomatic merging of two universal thesauri :the case of Estonia -- 20 years SWD :German subject authority data prepared for the future -- Mixed translations of the DDC :design, usability, and implications for knowledge organization in multilingual environments -- Animals belonging to the emperor :enabling viewpoint warrant in classification -- Dewey in Sweden :leaving SAB after 87 years -- Enhancing information services using machine-to-machine terminology services -- Social bookmarking and subject indexing -- Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library -- The Nuovo Soggettario Thesaurus :structural features and web application projects -- Jzyk Hasel Przedmiotowych Biblioteki Narodowej (National Library of Poland Subject Headings) :from card catalogs to Digital Library :some questions about the future of a Local Subject Heading Systems in the changing world of information retrieval -- FAST headings as tags for WorldCat

0.021814927 = product of:
  0.08725971 = sum of:
    0.08725971 = weight(_text_:und in 2060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08725971 = score(doc=2060,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14685147 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.5942039 = fieldWeight in 2060, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2060)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie: Sonderh.52

Source

Der Online-Publikumskatalog der Universitätsbibliothek Düsseldorf: methodische Erkenntnisse und Erfahrungen, OPAC-Kolloquium am 27.-28.11.1989. Hrsg.: G. Gattermann

0.021591177 = product of:
  0.08636471 = sum of:
    0.08636471 = weight(_text_:und in 1886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08636471 = score(doc=1886,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14685147 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06621197 = queryNorm
        0.58810925 = fieldWeight in 1886, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1886)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Seit Frühjahr 2004 ist Dandelon.com als neues, offenes, internationales Wissenschaftsportal in Betrieb. Erste Retrieval-Tests bescheinigen deutlich bessere Suchergebnisse als in herkömmlichen OPACs oder Verbundsystemen. Seine Daten stammen aus intelligentCAPTURE und Bibliothekskatalogen. intelligentCAPTURE erfasst Content über Scanning oder File-Import oder Web-Spidering und indexiert nach morphosyntaktischen und semantischen Verfahren. Aufbereiteter Content und Indexate gehen an Bibliothekssysteme und an dandelon.com. Dandelon.com ist kostenlos zugänglich für Endbenutzer und ist zugleich Austauschzentrale und Katalogerweiterung für angeschlossene Bibliotheken. Neue Inhalte können so kostengünstig und performant erschlossen werden.