共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 250 毫秒
1.
国内外大多数高校图书馆使用OPAC系统作为发现和访问电子书的主要渠道。图书馆OPAC系统对电子书的整合为编目工作带来了一系列挑战,包括有限的可用记录、缺乏标准化、添加和删除电子书产生的MARC记录问题,供应商提供的低质量数据问题。针对这些问题,高校图书馆应在微观层面制定本馆的电子书编目政策,在宏观层面制定电子书元数据标准,并建立联盟与电子书供应商谈判,以规范电子书市场,提高书目数据质量。 相似文献
2.
3.
提供电子书服务已经成为高校图书馆服务内容的一部分,高校图书馆也在积极地探索电子书的管理、利用和服务模式。文章对图书馆开展电子书服务中存在的问题进行深入剖析,并就如何开展电子书服务,提高图书馆电子书服务效益提出建议:完善电子图书采选机制,丰富电子图书资源;拓展图书馆电子书发现渠道,提高电子书的利用率;建立健全电子书资源的评价机制,提高电子书服务效益;加强馆际合作,促进电子书的资源共享;加强对馆员版权意识的培训,重视对电子书版权管理。 相似文献
4.
科技的发展正在改变图书馆馆藏资源建设模式.纸电融合趋势下,电子书馆藏建设成为高校图书馆馆藏资源建设的关注焦点.文章从电子书产业链的角度分析了当前电子书馆藏建设及电子书馆配模式中存在的问题,从积极对接电子书产业链、完善电子书馆藏资源建设环节、提升读者信息素养能力等方面提出建议,以供国内高校图书馆参考. 相似文献
5.
6.
国外高校图书馆电子书利用权益相关问题探究 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
电子书在国外高校图书馆的使用主要存在如下问题:①对于图书馆读者使用电子书的限制:对于浏览、打印、下载和传送文件的限制;数字版权管理的限制。②图书馆文献流通和馆际互借的限制:对于用户数量和用户类型的限制;对于流通的限制;对于以课程储备为目的的电子书使用的限制和对于馆际互借的限制; ③电子书阅读器在高校图书馆的借阅限制:专有软件和文件格式的限制;不能离线访问的限制;用户设备上的电子书存在被撤销的潜在可能。应对许可限制最直接的方法就是从供应商处获取不限制使用的电子书、与其他图书馆和联盟合作从为用户争取最大权益的角度出发与出版商谈判对图书馆界有利的许可条款,并尽量购买供应商提供可接受的条款的电子书,同时培养用户良好的电子书使用习惯。 相似文献
7.
电子书是地方高校图书馆馆藏资源建设的重要组成部分。以湖北地方高校图书馆为调查对象,对12所地方高校图书馆电子书服务现状进行调查,分析地方高校图书馆电子书资源建设目前面临的问题,并从电子书资源构成、服务平台构建、联盟合作、读者使用指导等方面,对开展电子书服务提出了建议,以期逐渐完善地方高校图书馆电子书资源建设。 相似文献
8.
陈芳 《大学图书情报学刊》2017,35(5)
为了解国内高校图书馆发现系统检索功能的栏目、内容和使用状况,文章对我国"985工程"高校图书馆发现系统检索功能的设计、检索结果的显示和管理等内容进行了调研.针对目前存在的资源组织规范和标准缺失、发现系统指向不明、社交和互动功能的使用情况与预期不符等问题,提出应加强资源组织的标准化建设,加强元数据合作建设,提供知识服务,加强发现系统移动服务建设和互动引导等建议. 相似文献
9.
10.
论文从电子书阅读器的特点及市场情况入手,分析目前图书馆电子书资源的利用状况,对于目前电子书资源在图书馆利用率低的情况进行了原因的探析.深入探讨在电子书阅读器的演进下给图书馆电子书利用率的提高带来的机遇,从而建议图书馆应该牢牢抓住机遇,以努力提高图书馆电子书资源的利用率. 相似文献
11.
《期刊图书馆员》2012,62(1-4):151-154
Collaboration between Ulrich's and the National Serials Data Program began more than ten years ago. Today the names have changed but this partnership continues to benefit publishers, libraries, and vendors who provide access to electronic serials. Many challenges are presented by differences in the metadata collected. A commitment to common goals and sharing metadata has made the partnership work. 相似文献
12.
Katharine Treptow Farrell Marc Truitt 《Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services》2005,28(4):473-487
Vendor records are one of the key components underpinning the acquisitions record in the integrated library system. Acquisitions and collection development practitioners increasingly need to record, access, and manipulate acquisitions vendor metadata for purposes not foreseen by the architects of current generation ILSs. The authors posit that vendor records can serve as an appropriate metaphor for the entire acquisitions record in the development of standards. The analysis of data elements and proposed grouping into fields, records, and metarecords suggests a direction for further development and enhanced functionality. The authors call on librarians, systems vendors, and materials vendors to engage in a dialog aimed at creating an accepted standard for vendor records that will meet the needs of all parties. 相似文献
13.
《Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services》2004,28(4):473-487
Vendor records are one of the key components underpinning the acquisitions record in the integrated library system. Acquisitions and collection development practitioners increasingly need to record, access, and manipulate acquisitions vendor metadata for purposes not foreseen by the architects of current generation ILSs. The authors posit that vendor records can serve as an appropriate metaphor for the entire acquisitions record in the development of standards. The analysis of data elements and proposed grouping into fields, records, and metarecords suggests a direction for further development and enhanced functionality. The authors call on librarians, systems vendors, and materials vendors to engage in a dialog aimed at creating an accepted standard for vendor records that will meet the needs of all parties. 相似文献
14.
《Journal of Web Librarianship》2013,7(1):14-27
ABSTRACTDiscovery tools are used in libraries to bring together books, articles, and other resources. Research has focused on user and librarian evaluation of these tools, but there are few evaluations of non-book and non-article sources. Discovery tools can also include metadata for local collections harvested through the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). Creating these harvests can be time consuming for staff, so it is important for libraries to understand if and how patrons use these records. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries (UNL Libraries) harvests metadata from local collections into the Encore discovery tool. A study was conducted to analyze patron use of OAI-harvested records. This study analyzed usage data for harvested collections obtained from different discovery sources and referrals through Encore. Google Analytics was used to evaluate searcher behavior differences between content referred through Encore and other referrals. Although discovery through Encore did not result in high numbers of traffic, there is evidence that patrons who discover records through Encore take more time looking through records than patrons using other discovery methods. This increase in time is a measure of engagement and may be reason enough for libraries to consider adding OAI-harvested collections to their discovery tool. 相似文献
15.
Chad HUTCHENS 《Learned Publishing》2013,26(3):159-165
Nearly every major publisher offers open access content of some sort, but open access metadata standards are non‐existent amongst content providers. Users, librarians, content providers, and technology vendors who offer OpenURL resolvers and discovery services all stand to benefit from standardized ways to indicate what content is open access and what is not. Additionally, all stakeholders would benefit from a standardized method by which one can ascertain what form of open access any content may be; indeed, there are many definitions of open access. There is ample evidence that every publisher handles their content metadata differently and this creates inefficiencies in the scholarly information supply chain and leads to user confusion. Many initiatives are currently working on solutions to these problems including the NISO KBART workgroup, NISO's Open Discovery Initiative, and NISO's very recently created Open Access Initiative. There are also pre‐existing concepts based on services, such as CrossRef's CrossMark service and discovery systems that hold promise with respect to open access content and metadata. 相似文献
16.
17.
Nadine P. Ellero 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(5-6):323-343
ABSTRACT “Discovery” is today's term for user-centered information searching and access. A growing number of libraries have embraced Web-scale discovery services (WSDS) featuring one-stop searching of libraries’ owned and licensed collections. Recognizing potential benefits to users of these systems, a mid-sized ARL library formed a discovery-tool committee in spring 2012 to explore selection of a WSDS in keeping with its values, vision, and institutional mission. This article explores “discovery” as it assesses WSDS performance and reports results obtained from a request to WSDS vendors to showcase the search power of their system with actual reference questions. 相似文献
18.
《期刊图书馆员》2012,62(1-2):6-14
ABSTRACTAcademic libraries provide intellectual access (discovery and procurement) to the full text of electronic journal articles through traditional library technologies like discovery layers, link resolver software and knowledge bases. These technologies mainly rely on accurate title-level metadata to successfully deliver journal articles to library users. Open Access articles pose a difficulty for many participants in the e-journal supply chain, including libraries and publishers, as Open Access status is a property of the article, not the title. A review of the literature examines: the impact of Open Access on intellectual access through traditional library technologies, current proposed solutions, and emerging technologies. 相似文献
19.
Graham STONE 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(2):106-113
A core goal of librarians is to maximize usage of the content to which their libraries subscribe. Webscale or resource discovery systems offer a single search box for library users to access subscribed content. This article examines usage data at the University of Huddersfield to show how resource discovery has helped to increase the usage of publisher content that has been made available to discovery vendors, and considers the implications for publishers who are yet to do this. The article concludes that resource discovery systems have effectively levelled the playing field, allowing small to medium‐sized publishers to make content discoverable to users, and encourages publishers who do not have their content indexed in resource discovery systems to speak to discovery service vendors in order to do so at the earliest opportunity. 相似文献
20.
《Journal of Web Librarianship》2013,7(4):331-348
Web-scale discovery service systems and platforms are continuing to evolve and become more commonly adopted in academic libraries. Functioning as more than next-generation catalogs due to their volume and associated Web services, they invite strategic inquiry and launch libraries into deeper questioning and continuous critical thinking concerning discovery system best practices. This article explores emerging library discovery positions and discovery requirements gleaned through position postings from Autocat, Code4Lib, ERIL-L, and NGC4Lib listserv e-mails, from February 2012 through July 2014, along with a 2013 scan of Association of Research Library (ARL) staff directories’ Web sites. As seen through the lens of recent discovery position postings and names of discovery positions at ARL libraries, staffing solutions suggest strategic oversight and deep understanding of discovery systems, metadata, and users. This study of 36 discovery positions reveals directors or managers as comprising the highest number with ten (28 percent), systems with eight (22 percent), cataloging and metadata with seven (19 percent), acquisitions or electronic resources with five (14 percent), user experiences with three (8 percent), access services with two (6 percent), and general technical services with one (3 percent). These emerging discovery positions traverse both traditional technical and public services functions, with the majority, 26 (72 percent), from large research-level institutions. 相似文献