四月29日新版的 RDA Toolkit Beta 釋出。新版引介了幾個新的功能，並且調整了幾個內容項目的位置。
詳細的修正要點，請參考 Notes on the April 29, 2020 RDA Toolkit Release 。
進入網站 ( https://www.libraryjournal.com/? )以後, 點選右上角的 Log In
然後輸入 以下的 ID及密碼
就可以瀏覽原本需要付費訂閱整個網站的全部內容，並包含每個月出刊的 Library Journal 電子版期刊。
In its first 30 years the world wide web has revolutionized the information environment. However, its impact has been negative as well as positive, through corporate misuse of personal data and due to its potential for enabling the spread of disinformation.
As a large-scale collaborative platform funded through charitable donations, with a mission to provide universal free access to knowledge as a public good, Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the world. This paper explores the role of Wikipedia in the information ecosystem where it occupies a unique role as a bridge between informal discussion and scholarly publication. We explore how it relates to the broader Wikimedia ecosystem, through structured data on Wikidata for instance, and openly licensed media on Wikimedia Commons. We consider the potential benefits for universities in the areas of information literacy and research impact, and investigate the extent to which universities in the UK and their libraries are engaging strategically with Wikimedia, if at all.
Social tagging allows users to assign any free-form keywords as tags to any digital resources through a decentralised way. Many information scientists find that there are similarities through their studies between usergenerated social tags and the librarian-generated subject headings for the libraries. The present study was conducted to identify the similarity and dissimilarity between user-generated social tags and librarian-generated subject terms of 1000 books in the domain of History. The study also conducted to identify whether social tags can replace controlled vocabularies. The study finds that only a small portion of terms overlaps with each other (3.54 % of social tags & 56.07 % of SLSH terms) and Spearman’s rank correlation proves that there is a good association between overlapping terms. Jaccard similarity coefficient highlights that users and the librarian use different terminologies (as J = 0.13, 0.12 & 0.11). Individual title wise comparison also defines that 90 per cent (88.4 %) of all book titles where users and the librarian use at least one common term. Users use the least subject & non-subject terms but use some personal tags for personal benefit whereas the librarian use only subject & non-subject terms. Matching with each book title clarifies that for describing resources users mostly use title based keywords (696) whereas the librarian use very little title based keywords (113). The study clearly defines that social tags can enhance the experience of library users. If it can be exploited properly it can complement to controlled vocabularies but can not replace the controlled vocabularies used for libraries a long time. Overall the study explicitly identifies the viability regarding the adoption of social tags into the library databases where the resources in the field of history will be accessed.
This study examines the book selections of 22 Manhattan College librarians, faculty, and students who were asked to make yes or no decisions for 287 books reviewed in CHOICE. It focuses on four research questions. First, What characteristics are associated with selected and nonselected books? Although there is only modest agreement among selectors, yes decisions are associated with favorable reviews, appropriateness for lower-division undergraduates, reasonable price, publication by a university press, and the absence of caveats in the review. The results suggest that selectors are willing to relax certain selection criteria if others are exceeded, that selectors’ generally favorable attitudes toward multidisciplinary works do not extend to all such books, and that titles in areas unfamiliar to the selector are less likely to be chosen. Second, What are the key differences among the book selections of librarians, faculty, and undergraduates? Although there are minor differences among all three groups, the main finding is that students’ selections are relatively unpredictable and less closely linked to particular book and review characteristics. Third, What are the key differences among the book selections of specialists (faculty and librarians) in the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities? Although the three subject groups are similar in their yes/no decisions and in the characteristics of the books they choose, most selectors demonstrate a strong tendency to favor books in their own subject areas. Finally, What individual characteristics are associated with effectiveness as a book selector? Librarians and faculty are equally effective, overall. Faculty have an advantage among selectors without book selection experience, but the positive impact of experience is greater for librarians than for faculty. In contrast, students are relatively ineffective selectors, and their choices are not closely related to those of other students, faculty, or librarians.
This study investigated the correlation of perceived usefulness and patronage of the Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) by undergraduate students in universities in South-west Nigeria. The descriptive research design of the ex post facto was adopted using a sample of 1,527 selected from the total population of 239,048 undergraduate students in the universities. A questionnaire was used to collect the data. The results revealed that most undergraduate students patronized the OPAC two to three times a week. The findings show that the perceived usefulness of the OPAC had influence on its patronage by undergraduate students in the universities (r = 0.516**, N = 1333, P < 0.05). The study concluded that perceived usefulness influenced OPAC patronage by undergraduate students in the universities. The study, therefore, recommends that the importance of the OPAC should be emphasized in the library to enhance its perceived usefulness by the students in the university libraries.
Authority lists or indices are key components of cataloging and metadata work as they provide critical anchoring points to disambiguate between various entities. This article describes the creation of a glacier index at the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Snow and Ice Data Center which required synthesizing various data sources into a comprehensive list. This paper explores the background of this project, criteria used to justify the creation of the index, the complications inherent in creating a data source for two different types of memory institutions, publishing that data in Wikidata, and the impacts the index has for describing aspects of climate change.
國家圖書館編目園地電子報 第231期 2020/06/01發行