Search (13375 results, page 11 of 669)

0.05251715 = product of:
  0.2100686 = sum of:
    0.2100686 = weight(_text_:home in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2100686 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.4979738 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.05251715 = product of:
  0.2100686 = sum of:
    0.2100686 = weight(_text_:home in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2100686 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.4979738 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Faceted classification is believed to be suitable for organizing digital information resources. Based on a faceted classification model suggested for Web resources (Zins, 2002), the current study analyzed popular Web directories from different Asian countries/areas and examined cultural differences reflected in their classification systems. Three popular Web directories from four countries/regions (China, Hong Kong, Korea, and Thailand) were selected and their classifications were analyzed and compared: a local Yahoo and two home-grown Web directories from each country/region. Based on the findings, the study suggests a model that might be more suitable to Asian culture.

0.05251715 = product of:
  0.2100686 = sum of:
    0.2100686 = weight(_text_:home in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2100686 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.4979738 = fieldWeight in 844, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=844)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Issues of becoming an Internet user primarily in non-work contexts are discussed. The author reviews individual, social and economic factors motivating network use. Main findings of an empirical study based on the interviews of 23 Finns in 1997 are analysed. In addition, comparisons are made with the findings of the Consumer Research Project (1996-98), conducted in Finland. The main motivating factors leading to network use were the requirements of work and study; also making everyday transactions easier, for example by home banking, was seen as important. The network connections were also acquired for keeping in contact with others and for hobbies, whereas entertainment purposes were not valued.

0.05251715 = product of:
  0.2100686 = sum of:
    0.2100686 = weight(_text_:home in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2100686 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.4979738 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

It is contended that while there are considerable numbers of people interested in the application of information retrieval (IR) software on their home computers in their professional, working and recreational activities, they are not very well served in using it to best advantage. Describes the writer's attempts to transfer some of the recorded good practice of the first information managers to contemporary problems. Data input standards devoted to library organisation may be developed to establish a set of principles to encourage the consistent organisation of the entire range of objects which might be represented in databases. Specific areas of difficulty are examined.

0.05251715 = product of:
  0.2100686 = sum of:
    0.2100686 = weight(_text_:home in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2100686 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.4979738 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.05251715 = product of:
  0.2100686 = sum of:
    0.2100686 = weight(_text_:home in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2100686 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.4979738 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to analyze users' behavior during image retrieval exercises. Results revealed that users tend to follow a set search strategy: firstly they input one or two keyword search terms one after another and view the images generated by their initial search and after they navigate their way around the web by using the 'back to home' or 'previous page' buttons. These results are consistent with existing Web research. Many of the actions recorded revealed that subjects behavior differed depending on if the task set was presented as a closed or open task. In contrast no differences were found for the time subjects took to perform a single action or their use of the AND operator.

0.05251715 = product of:
  0.2100686 = sum of:
    0.2100686 = weight(_text_:home in 2969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2100686 = score(doc=2969,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.4979738 = fieldWeight in 2969, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2969)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.

0.050355803 = product of:
  0.10071161 = sum of:
    0.010682208 = weight(_text_:und in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010682208 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14530917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.07351366 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
    0.090029396 = weight(_text_:home in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090029396 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.21341734 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl. für einen Entwurf des zweiten Teils (2012): http://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/Details/931.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.047475908 = product of:
  0.094951816 = sum of:
    0.010071283 = weight(_text_:und in 2795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010071283 = score(doc=2795,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14530917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.06930935 = fieldWeight in 2795, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2795)
    0.08488053 = weight(_text_:home in 2795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08488053 = score(doc=2795,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.2012118 = fieldWeight in 2795, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2795)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

BK

05.20 / Kommunikation und Gesellschaft

Classification

05.20 / Kommunikation und Gesellschaft

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.5, S.467-468 (W. Koehler): "Virtual Inequality is an important contribution to the digital divide debate. That debate takes two basic forms. One centers an the divide between the "information rich" developed countries and the "information poor" developing countries. The second is concerned with the rift between information "haves" and "have-nots" within countries. This book addresses the latter domain and is concerned with the digital divide in the United States. This book is the product of a cross-disciplinary collaboration. Mossberger and Tolbert are both members of the Kent State University political science department while Stansbury is an the Library and Information Science faculty. The book is extremely well documented. Perhaps the chapter an the democracy divide and e-government is the best done, reflecting the political science bent of two of the authors. E-government is very well covered. Unfortunately, e-commerce and e-education go virtually unmentioned. If e-government is important to defining the digital divide, then certainly e-commerce and e-education are as well. Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury argue that the digital divide should be described as four different divides: the access divide, the skills divide, the economic opportunity divide, and the democratic divide. Each of these divides is developed in its own chapter. Each chapter draws well an the existing literature. The book is valuable if for no other reason than that it provides an excellent critique of the current state of the understanding of the digital divide in the United States. It is particularly good in its contrast of the approaches taken by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Perhaps this is a function of the multidisciplinary strength of the book's authorship, for indeed it shows here. The access divide is defined along "connectivity" lines: who has access to digital technologies. The authors tonfirm the conventional wisdom that age and education are important predictors of in-home access, but they also argue that rate and ethnicity are also factors (pp. 32-33): Asian Americans have greatest access followed by whites, Latinos, and African Americans in that order. Most access the Internet from home or work, followed by friends' computers, libraries, and other access points. The skills divide is defined as technical competence and information literacy (p. 38). Variation was found along technical competence for age, education, affluence, rate, and ethnicity, but not gender (p. 47). The authors conclude that for the most part the skills divide mirrors the access divide (p. 55). While they found no gender difference, they did find a gender preference for skills acquisition: males prefer a more impersonal delivery ("online help and tutorials") while females prefer more personal instruction (p. 56).

0.047086492 = product of:
  0.094172984 = sum of:
    0.034153383 = weight(_text_:und in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034153383 = score(doc=2973,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.14530917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.23503943 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
    0.060019597 = weight(_text_:home in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060019597 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.14227822 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Introduction: Libraries and Their Interrelationships with Google - William Miller Disruptive Beneficence: The Google Print Program and the Future of Libraries - Mark Sandler The Google Library Project at Oxford - Ronald Milne The (Uncertain) Future of Libraries in a Google World: Sounding an Alarm - Rick Anderson A Gaggle of Googles: Limitations and Defects of Electronic Access as Panacea - -Mark Y. Herring Using the Google Search Appliance for Federated Searching: A Case Study - Mary Taylor Google's Print and Scholar Initiatives: The Value of and Impact on Libraries and Information Services - Robert J. Lackie Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the Performance of Schoogle - Burton Callicott; Debbie Vaughn Google, the Invisible Web, and Librarians: Slaying the Research Goliath - Francine Egger-Sider; Jane Devine Choices in the Paradigm Shift: Where Next for Libraries? - Shelley E. Phipps; Krisellen Maloney Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library - Maurice C. York Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use - Janice Adlington; Chris Benda Running with the Devil: Accessing Library-Licensed Full Text Holdings Through Google Scholar - Rebecca Donlan; Rachel Cooke Directing Students to New Information Types: A New Role for Google in Literature Searches? - Mike Thelwall Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy Rachael Cathcart - Amanda Roberts Optimising Publications for Google Users - Alan Dawson Google and Privacy - Paul S. Piper Image: Google's Most Important Product - Ron Force Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack - Michael J. Krasulski; Steven J. Bell

Footnote

Co-published simultaneously as Internet reference services quarterly, vol. 10(1005), nos. 3/4 Rez. in: ZfBB 54(2007) H.2, S.98-99 (D. Lewandowski): "Google und Bibliotheken? Meist hat man leider den Eindruck, dass hier eher ein oder gedacht wird. Dies sehen auch die Herausgeber des vorliegenden Bandes und nehmen deshalb neben Beiträgen zur Diskussion um die Rolle der Bibliotheken im Zeitalter von Google auch solche auf, die Tipps zur Verwendung unterschiedlicher Google-Dienste geben. Die allgemeine Diskussion um Google und die Bibliotheken dreht sich vor allem um die Rolle, die Bibliotheken (mit ihren Informationsportalen) noch spielen können, wenn ihre Nutzer sowieso bei Google suchen, auch wenn die Bibliotheksangebote (zumindest von den Bibliothekaren) als überlegen empfunden werden. Auch wenn die Nutzer geschult werden, greifen sie doch meist lieber zur einfachen Recherchemöglichkeit bei Google oder anderen Suchmaschinen - vielleicht lässt sich die Situation am besten mit dem Satz eines im Buch zitierten Bibliothekars ausdrücken: »Everyone starts with Google except librarians.« (5.95) Sollen die Bibliotheken nun Google die einfache Recherche ganz überlassen und sich auf die komplexeren Suchfragen konzentrieren? Oder verlieren sie dadurch eine Nutzerschaft, die sich mittlerweile gar nicht mehr vorstellen kann, dass man mit anderen Werkzeugen als Suchmaschinen bessere Ergebnisse erzielen kann? Diese sicherlich für die Zukunft der Bibliotheken maßgebliche Frage wird in mehreren Beiträgen diskutiert, wobei auffällt, dass die jeweiligen Autoren keine klare Antwort bieten können, wie Bibliotheken ihre Quellen so präsentieren können, dass die Nutzer mit der Recherche so zufrieden sind, dass sie freiwillig in den Bibliotheksangeboten anstatt in Google recherchieren. Den Schwerpunkt des Buchs machen aber nicht diese eher theoretischen Aufsätze aus, sondern solche, die sich mit konkreten Google-Diensten beschäftigen. Aufgrund ihrer Nähe zu den Bibliotheksangeboten bzw. den Aufgaben der Bibliotheken sind dies vor allem Google Print und Google Scholar, aber auch die Google Search Appliance. Bei letzterer handelt es sich um eine integrierte Hard- und Softwarelösung, die die Indexierung von Inhalten aus unterschiedlichen Datenquellen ermöglicht. Der Aufsatz von Mary Taylor beschreibt die Vor- und Nachteile des Systems anhand der praktischen Anwendung in der University of Nevada.
Ebenfalls direkt aus der Praxis erhält der Leser Informationen zum Google-PrintProgramm. Robert Milne beschreibt die Zusammenarbeit von Google und der Universität Oxford. In diesem Aufsatz wird - was dem Autor natürlich nicht anzulasten ist - ein Problem des vorliegenden Werks deutlich: Viele Informationen sind doch von sehr beschränkter Haltbarkeit. Der Redaktionsschluss war im Frühsommer 2005, sodass sich in vielen Bereichen bereits neue Entwicklungen ergeben haben. Dies ist beim Print-Programm der Fall, vor allem wird es aber bei dem Hauptthema des Bandes, nämlich Google Scholar, deutlich. Dieser Dienst wurde im November 2004 gestartet und stieß auf unterschiedlichste Reaktionen, die (anhand von Beispielen amerikanischer Bibliotheken) im Beitrag von Maurice C. York beschrieben werden. Einige Bibliotheken nahmen den Dienst begeistert auf und verlinkten diesen mit Lob versehen auf ihren Websites. Andere reagierten gegenteilig und warnten vor dessen schlechter Qualität. Auch weil vorauszusehen war, dass Google Scholar bei den Nutzern gut ankommen würde, darf das folgende Statement von einer Bibliothekswebsite geradezu als ignorant gelten: Google Scholar »is wonderful for those who do not have access to the library's databases« (S.119). Wie nun die Scholar-Nutzer auf die Bibliotheksangebote gelenkt werden können, beschreibt der ironisch »Running with the Devil« betitelte Aufsatz von Rebecca Donlan und Rachel Cooke. Die Autorinnen beschreiben den Einsatz von Link-Resolvern und gehen auf die in Google Scholar bestehenden Probleme durch unklare Bezeichnungen in den Trefferlisten ein. Einige Beispiele zeigen, dass Google Scholar auch in Kombination mit der Verlinkung auf die Bibliotheksbestände keine befriedigende Recherchesituation herstellt, sondern vielmehr weitere Anstrengungen nötig sind, um »das Beste beider Welten« zusammenzuführen. Zwei weitere Aufsätze beschäftigen sich mit der Frage, wie gut Google Scholar eigentlich ist. Einmal geht es darum, wie gut Scholar den »ACRL Information Literacy Standards« genügt. Der zweite Beitrag vergleicht Google Scholar anhand von fünf Suchaufgaben einerseits mit einem lokalen Bibliothekskatalog, andererseits mit EBSCOs Academic Search Premier und jeweils einer fachspezifischen Datenbank. Die Ergebnisse zeigen keine durchgehende Überlegenheit einer Suchlösung, vielmehr wird deutlich, dass es auf die Auswahl des richtigen Suchwerkzeugs für die bestehende Suchanfrage ankommt bzw. dass erst eine Kombination dieser Werkzeuge zu optimalen Ergebnissen führt. Man könnte also auch hier wieder sagen: Google und Bibliotheken, nicht Google oder Bibliotheken.
Ein besonders interessanter Aufsatz widmet sich der Frage, wie Bibliotheken ihre Web-Angebote (hier: vor allem die Seiten zu digitalisierten Werken) so optimieren können, dass sie von Google und anderen Suchmaschinen optimal indexiert werden können. Dies wird leicht verständlich erklärt und dürfte für viele Bibliotheken, deren entsprechende Websites noch suboptimal gestaltet sind, eine gute Hilfestellung sein. Auch sehr praktisch orientiert ist der letzte Beitrag des Bandes, der verschiedene Quellen vorstellt, die sich mit aktuellen Entwicklungen bei Google (bzw. bei Suchmaschinen allgemein) beschäftigen, diese einzeln bewertet und Empfehlungen abgibt, welche man regelmäßig und welche man ab und zu lesen sollte. Die Bedeutung ist hier klar: Wenn Bibliotheken sich mit Google messen (oder darüber hinaus gehen?) möchten, müssen sie die Konkurrenz und ihre aktuellen Produkte kennen. Interessant wäre gewesen, noch den einen oder anderen Beitrag zu Suchprodukten von Bibliotheksseite zu lesen. Wie sollten solche Produkte beschaffen sein, um den Google-Nutzer zu den Bibliotheksangeboten zu führen? Welche Angebote gibt es hier bereits? Wie sehen die Anbieter von OPACs und Bibliothekssystemen die Zukunft der Bibliotheksrecherche? Und auch auf die nach Meinung des Rezensenten zurzeit wohl wichtigste Frage im Google-Kontext wird nicht eingegangen: Wie kann es den Bibliotheken gelingen, ein System (oder Systeme) zu schaffen, das nicht nur versucht, die Stärken der Suchmaschinen zu adaptieren, sondern ihnen einen Schritt voraus zu sein? Diese Kritik soll aber nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass es sich bei dem vorliegenden Werk um eine gut lesbare Zusammenstellung von Aufsätzen handelt, die allen empfohlen werden kann, die sich einen Überblick zur Thematik verschaffen wollen, die Diskussion in den internationalen Fachzeitschriften aber nicht sowieso minutiös verfolgen."

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 4905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=4905,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 4905, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4905)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Major changes in the DDC-20 are discussed, with particular reference to: the complete revision of music (780); the expanded possibilities in computer science and data processing (001-006); revision of geographical areas for some parts of the world; changes and revision in religion, media, elelctronics. Also stresses important relocations of subject, such as: clinical psychology and home economics. Important expansions have also taken place in the various tables: some of 02 in table 1; the expansion of table 3; the expansion of African topics in both tables 5 and 6. The addition of numerous notes and recommendations is useful. The new index is criticized for the fact that instructions for use are placed in vol.1 rather than in the index itself. The publication of the manual together with the schedules is welcomed, but the separation between the instructions in vol.1 and in the manual of vol.4 is confusing, since most of these issues belong together. On the whole, the new edition reflects adequately the 'literary warrant of the last decade'

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 5619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=5619,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 5619, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5619)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The argument that mediated online ready refernce searching is an indispensible service is presented. The proliferation of Internet resources, including electronic journals, online catalogs, and other resources creates new user expectations and demands on reference service points. While end-user searching makes sense when a common interface for a multitude of diverse databases is provided, the contemporaray version of remote access challenges searchers to tackle nearly every type of vendor product available as well as several home-grown varieties. Until 'intelligent systems' can span the diversity of available online systems, librarians may once agian find themselves in the role of search mediator that was common when online databases were first introduced. While the task of keeping reference librarians apprised of developing electronic resources is formidable, end-user instruction is even more so. Because the diversity of online systems makes it impractical to know each system in very much detail, reference librarians will need to concentrate on developing a better conceptual framework

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reprts results of a survey, conducted by the CAVAL Reference Interest Group on AARNet and the Internet and WWW, the principal aim of which was to investigate the extent to which reference librarians in academic libraries use workshops available on the Internet. The survey, which involved 11 university libraires in Victoria, Australia, also covered: the extent and frequency of use of network facilities and services such as AARNet; library staff training in the use of the networks; expertise in the use of the networks; training given by reference librarians to academic staff and students; and other comments related to the Internet. Results indicated a great deal of Internet facilities by reference librarians in university libraries in Victoria, with the commonest services used being electronic mail, discussion lists, national and international library catalogues, and periodicals databases. There is increasing use of Gophers, either produced by home institutions or those of their institutions. A major problem identified was the amount of time needed to train Internet users. FTP, as a means of transferring computerized files from one computer to another, appears to be relatively little used

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper considers the need for a more systematic and critical approach to the academic study of information policy at national and international level. It reviews the complex, multifaceted nature of large-scale information policy problems and considers some of the main sources of confusion in the journal literature. It is argued that while information policy has been largey technology-driven, the consideration of information policy has, for historical reasons, typically been discipline-bounded. This has contributed to a fragmentation of research effort and a lack of consensus on the most appropriate home discipline for the study of information policy. In the search for a more critical scientific understanding of information policy issues, a brief review is made of the strenghts, limitations and applicability of the broad theoretical and methodological approaches which have been adopted, often implicitly, by writers reporting in the library and information science literature. The paper concludes with a consideration of some desirable characteristics for the design of information policy studies

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents a guide to searching for information on the Internet covering Research-It; familiar quotations: a collection of passages, phrases and proverbs traced to their sources in ancient and modern literature by John Bartlett; the Internet Public Library Reference Center; SearchERIC Database; Britannica Online; Britannica's Lives; The complete works of William Shakespeare; Flicks/Movie Schedules and Reviews; the Electronic Newsstand; CNN Interactive; Time Warner's Pathfinder; Electronic Newspapers from all 50 States; Yahoo, News; Newspapers; Techweb; ZDNet; the On-line Books Page; Columbia University Bartleby Library; the Children's Literature Web Guide; National Institutes of Health; US Census Bureau; Earthquake Info; US Postal Service Zip+4 Lookup; the Federal Web Locator; World Wide Web Virtual Library; US Government Information Sources; Index of the Constitution of the US; US States Code; Find California Code; Dearch for Bills; California Tenant's Rights; The Online Career Center; QuickAID Home Page; City.Net; Netscape's Destinations Button; International Telephone Directory; World Alumni Net; Archives of Adoptees and Birth Parents; and World Wide Registry Matching Adoptees with Birth Parents

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 1524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=1524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 1524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1524)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the work of a task force of librarians, at Illinois University at Chicago, in developing an introductory course on the online searching of the Internet and which was conducted over the University's electronic mail network. The 16 lesson course was distributed via listserv to students, staff, residents, and faculty (some using university facilities and some using equipment at their home or office) in various locations throughout the state. Initially, more than 450 people subscribes. Subscribers received 2 lessons a week for 8 weeks. Lessons were made available via FTP ot gopher after initial distribution. Content included basic information, troubleshooting advice, and exercises for practice. Pre and post tests were conducted via listserv to assess the participants' prior knowledge and subsequent knowledge gain. Describes the development of the online course, discusses the results of pre and post tests, and notes the implications for the library's instructional role of using an online instruction medium

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 3448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=3448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 3448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3448)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The development of digital information and communication technologies will change the nature of political debate and the role of professional societies. Develops some of these issues, especially pornography, in consideration of policing the Internet. Addresses the following 4 aspects of pornography: children and access; accidentally finding; morphing; and the meaning of words. Distinguishes 5 different contexts where different professional judgements have to be made: the workplace; the university; the school; public spaces; and the home. Points to the new ethical professional considerations which arise from the development of technology. Suggests that there is a special role for professional societies in working out policies for policing the virtual society that is the Internet

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents Dynamic Reference Sifting - a novel architecture that attempts to provide both maximally comprehensive coverage and highly precise responses in real time, for specific home page categories. Describes Ahoy! The Homepage Finder (http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/ahoy), a fielded Web service that embodies Dynamic Reference Sifting for the domain of personal homepages. Ahoy! filters the output of mulptile Web indices to extract 1 or 2 references that are most likely to point to the person's homepage. If it finds no likely candidates, Ahoy! uses knowledge of homepage placement conventions, which it has accumulated from previous experience, to guess the URL for the desired homepage. Ahoy! finds the target homepage and ranks it as the top reference. 9% of the targets are found by guessing the URL. altaVista can find 58% of the targets and ranks only 23% of these as the top reference

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 6103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=6103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 6103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6103)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Focuses on some issues relating to Internet search engines, (such as Alta Vista, HotBot and Yahoo!) and their use in news information Web sites on the Internet, some of the ways in which search engine providers are trying to improve searching performance and some of the choices facing information providers. Reviews ways in which search engine providers are responding to the challenge of improving searching, including: adding a selective, browsable database as an alternative; including only home pages (producing fewer hits) and browsability; adding company information; adjusting the weightings on their relevance rankings; building up searches; and allowing Boolean logic and field searching. Also examines the options facing providers of news information on the Internet, particularly primary sources such as newspapers, news agencies and television companies. Discusses issues such as: whether or not to charge; the types of hyperlinks to provide; whether or not to partner and become a portal; the desirability of electronic mail alert; and the acceptability of news aggregation

0.045014698 = product of:
  0.18005879 = sum of:
    0.18005879 = weight(_text_:home in 6194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18005879 = score(doc=6194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4218467 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06551658 = queryNorm
        0.42683467 = fieldWeight in 6194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4387774 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6194)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Outlines the administrative framework of libraries in Slovenia and describes the computer supported system, based at the Institute of Information Science (IZUM), formerly the University of Maribor Computer Centre. UZM acts as host to COBISS (Cooperative Online Bibliographic System and Services), a union catalogue in which identical entries in over 200 local catalogues relate to a single record. COBISS is supported by communications network ARNES (Academic Research Network in Slovenia), which provides Internet connection, and is used for local functions and the preparation of the national bibliography as well as access to online databases. Also focuses on CD-ROM databases at the National and University Library (NUL) and the university of Maribor, technological changes to COBISS, retrospective conversion of catalogues of old materials, the archiving of Slovenia Internet documents in the public domain and the early stages of creating Internet home pages for the NUL