Search results

The self‐describing nature of data marked up using extensible markup language (XML) allows the XML document itself to act in a manner similar to a database, but without the large file sizes and proprietary software generally associated with database applications. XML data can be made directly available to users using a variety of methods. This paper explores methods for both server‐side and client‐side processing and display of XML‐encoded data, using an annotated bibliography as an example.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the efficacy of the brief test method and OCLC's WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA) in analyzing strengths and weaknesses of collections in three academic libraries.

Monographic collections in zoology were assessed in the study, using both the brief test method and WCA at three institutions.

The paper finds that both the brief test and WCA provide valuable insight into collection strengths and weaknesses.

This is an analysis of only one subject area and one format. Further studies might focus on other disciplines and might take into account a variety of formats.

The study suggests ways in which collection managers might gain a better knowledge of their collection for such purposes as cooperative collection development and preservation.

Since WCA is a newly available tool, there are few studies using this methodology. This adds to the limited literature on the brief test methodology.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the overall quality of the Louisville Free Public Library's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender collection.

The study implements an inductive check‐list method. Where other check‐lists compare a list to the collection, ignoring the number of items which do not appear on the list, an inductive method takes a sample of the entire collection, and compares it with several evaluative lists, demonstrating what percentage of the collection is not considered “desirable” by common evaluative lists.

The results found that 31.9 percent of the LFPL's GLBT collection can be found in the evaluative lists used. Previous inductive evaluations suggest that this number indicates a quality core GLBT collection.

A sample collection was chosen using GLBT‐related subject headings; however, evidence shows that a portion of the actual GLBT collection (perhaps as much as 37.5 percent) lack appropriate subject access control. This results in a potentially flawed sample.

This study provides public librarians with a standard by which they can evaluate their GLBT collections and their library's attempt to meet the needs of a frequently underrepresented minority.

Very few inductive evaluations have been published, and almost none has been published studying GLBT collections. The paper attempts to fill that gap, and provide a deeper standard by which GLBT collections can be evaluated.