共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 79 毫秒
1.
Millie Jackson 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(1-2):165-173
ABSTRACT Google Book Search presents an opportunity to search millions of books from the Google Library partners and publishing partners. How does metadata compare in Google Book Search and library catalogs? 相似文献
2.
谷歌数字图书馆计划发展历程与版权问题分析 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
文章首先对谷歌数字图书馆计划进行简单介绍,并对图书馆计划实施至今所发生的事件进行简单历史回顾,然后分析谷歌数字图书馆计划的经济目的与文化目的,最后重点对该计划实施过程中的合理使用、"opt-out"与和解协议存在的版权法律问题进行分析,认为谷歌不能以合理使用来抗辩其行为. 相似文献
3.
国内对Google图书搜索项目的研究进展 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
从文献入手,对我国学者近年来有关Google图书搜索项目的研究进行梳理和总结,首先简要分析了此项目的中文定名,然后归纳出国内学者关注的重点是版权问题、Goosle图书搜索产生的影响和图书馆的应对等几方面,并进行评述.最后建议今后可以研究图书搜索比较分析以及图书馆参与图书搜索项目后如何进一步发展. 相似文献
4.
This article summarizes published documents on metadata provided by Google for books scanned as part of the Google Book Search (GBS) project and provides suggestions for improvement. The faulty, misleading, and confusing metadata in current Google records can pose potentially serious problems for users of GBS. Google admits that it took data, which proved to be inaccurate, from many sources and is attempting to correct errors. Some argue that metadata is not needed with keyword searching; but optical character recognition (OCR) errors, synonym control, and materials in foreign languages make reliable metadata a requirement for academic researchers. The authors recommend that users should be able to submit error reports to Google to correct faulty metadata. 相似文献
5.
Robert J. Lackie MLIS 《The Reference Librarian》2013,54(1):35-53
Google's initiative to scan and add book content into its search engine has resulted in much praise and protest. Changing its digitization project's name from Google Print to Google Book Search and adding information to its site did not keep Google out of copyright court. However, publicity surrounding this project has spawned renewed interest in book digitization projects, with collaborative efforts quickly growing. This article will look at Book Search's history, highlight how it has been altered along with its name, and point out other interesting book digitization projects that Book Search has spawned or recently brought into the limelight, such as those associated with the Internet Archive. 相似文献
6.
ABSTRACT The Google Book Search Library Project has partnered with an array of impressive libraries, including Harvard University, the University of California System, University of Michigan, and the New York Public Library. The reasons for collaborating with Google to further book digitization are different for each library. Moreover, the exact way in which these libraries will use their own digital copies has yet to be decided for many of the libraries involved. While the Google Book Search Library Project remains controversial, the Google library partners are seizing an unprecedented opportunity to amplify the scale of their pre-existing digitization initiatives. 相似文献
7.
8.
Shawn Martin 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(1-2):141-150
ABSTRACT This article looks at two different projects, the Google Book Search project and the Text Creation Partnership, both linked to the University of Michigan Library. Though on the surface they are very different, the Text Creation Partnership, a model of cooperation between scholars, librarians, and publishers, may have some useful lessons for how to make Google Book Search more useful for academic research, particularly in full-text searching. 相似文献
9.
版权法没有合理使用的明确标准,有关合理使用的问题是依照个案事实裁判。现有版权立法也没有规制数字图书馆版权侵权问题,面对信息技术和网络技术对版权合理使用的挑战,传统版权法认定合理使用的四要件显然不利于公众利益和技术创新,数字图书馆的出现为扩大合理使用适用范围提供了良好的机会。 相似文献
10.
介绍选择SRU实现DSpace系统检索服务的原因和背景,分析基于SRU协议的DSpace系统嵌入式检索服务的设计架构,并以JavaScript HTML和Google Gadget的方式实现检索服务,使得DSpace检索服务能够很好地嵌入用户环境,与其他系统实现无缝集成。 相似文献
11.
胡远玲 《大学图书情报学刊》2004,22(3):47-49
搜索引擎之王Google开放了它的查询接口,可以让全世界各地的程序员有限免费地以WehService的方式,对Google下查找指令,并且将结果用于自己的程序或网页中,给程序员带来了极大的方便。章介绍了Google API在Delphi中的使用,并给出了详细的Delphi程序。 相似文献
12.
[目的/意义] 梳理人文社科专著众筹OA出版的发展现状，分析具有公益性特点的OA出版物和具有商业性特点的众筹出版所引起的冲突，以期对学术专著众筹出版提出有价值的思考。[方法/过程] 从发起者、投资者和众筹平台3个基本要素梳理Open Book Publishers和Knowledge Unlatched的众筹模式，比较异同点，探讨两者在竞争中引起的问题。[结果/结论] 目前，欧美国家的学术专著众筹出版分为高校、众筹商和OA出版社3种模式。Knowledge Unlatched是期望通过对图书馆的优质服务获得收益的众筹商，Open Book Publishers是借助网络开展众筹出版的OA出版社，两者属于商业化大型公司和非营利性OA出版社的竞争关系，在OA出版物的商业化开发、财务公开透明、垄断性的销售模式和审核制度方面值得高度关注。 相似文献
13.
14.
Gloriana St. Clair 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(1-2):151-163
ABSTRACT This paper updates three ongoing book scanning projects (Google Book Search, the Million Book Project, and the Open Content Alliance), discusses the changing paradigm for authority in scholarly work, and reflects on the barrier of copyright and how it might be overcome. 相似文献
15.
叶红卫 《现代图书情报技术》2010,26(9):90-93
将Google 图书搜索引擎嵌入到Web OPAC中,实现Web OPAC的图书预览功能,并详细介绍实现的技术思路和具体实现步骤,利用Web OPAC为用户提供更好的信息服务。 相似文献
16.
《Slavic & East European Information Resources》2013,14(1-2):179-194
ABSTRACT During 2002 the Russian publishing industry and news media were under intense scrutiny, sometimes verging on assault, by government and pro-government groups. A new 20% value-added tax was an additional blow, although it was reduced to 10% in the middle of the year. Russian publishing appears to be healthy in spite of those problems, although statistics from the Russian Book Chamber (Rossiiskaia knizhnaia palata) are notoriously unreliable. Statistics on books carried by Russian Press Service give an approximate picture of scholarly book publishing. 相似文献
17.
[目的/意义]探究在协同与独立模式下完成信息搜索任务的过程中,用户在搜索体验、交互行为方面的差异,试图通过对比研究来理解协同信息搜索行为的特点,为协同搜索系统的设计提供借鉴。[方法/过程]基于图书交互式检索平台（CLEF-Social Book Search）进行实验,共招募16名独立被试和18名协同被试到实验室完成多种类型的书目搜索任务,对搜索前后问卷记录的搜索体验以及后台服务器记录的搜索过程交互行为进行对比分析。[结果/结论]搜索体验方面,协同搜索被试比独立搜索被试对实验系统的功能评价更好,对系统的美感、耐用性、新颖度评价更高,参与实验的专注度更高,但却感到更加费力;搜索行为方面,相比独立模式下的被试,协同模式下的被试在目标型任务中进行更多次决策,尤其是删除书目的决策,意味着协同搜索被试在搜索后期会进行更多的决策讨论和整理;在探索任务中,协同被试比独立被试的平均决策时间和首次决策时间都更长,可能是由于在探索任务中协同被试的参与度更高、讨论更多。 相似文献
18.
19.
This paper reports the findings of a study on the positioning of an academic book in the information market. The contribution and significance of academic books to the spheres of science and education has been noted. The quantitative characteristics illustrate the relative stagnation of an academic book publishing based on the data obtained from the Russian Book Chamber. Expert-based evaluations from the leading research and academic libraries indicate that the official statistics are somewhat overstated and the quality of academic books has declined. 相似文献
20.
Despite recent evidence that Microsoft Academic is an extensive source of citation counts for journal articles, it is not known if the same is true for academic books. This paper fills this gap by comparing citations to 16,463 books from 2013 to 2016 in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from Microsoft Academic and Google Books in 17 fields. About 60% of the BKCI books had records in Microsoft Academic, varying by year and field. Citation counts from Microsoft Academic were 1.5 to 3.6 times higher than from BKCI in nine subject areas across all years for books indexed by both. Microsoft Academic found more citations than BKCI because it indexes more scholarly publications and combines citations to different editions and chapters. In contrast, BKCI only found more citations than Microsoft Academic for books in three fields from 2013-2014. Microsoft Academic also found more citations than Google Books in six fields for all years. Thus, Microsoft Academic may be a useful source for the impact assessment of books when comprehensive coverage is not essential. 相似文献