臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

圖書館線上目錄原是查檢館藏之主要媒介，在資訊超載的環境下，如何提供有助於讀者成功檢索之機制，已成刻不容緩之議題。其中一個可努力的方向，就是改善線上目錄檢索結果呈現方式。傳統以來，圖書館以載體版本之書目紀錄水平呈現，並未能有效彰顯檢索結果間的關聯，亦不符一般檢索者喜歡Google、Amazon.com等呈現介面之期待。
Amazon.com是全球最早也最成功的網路書店，其用以提昇使用者點閱圖書的機制之一，就是在書目介面呈現大量鏈結。Amazon.com藉書目鏈結提高書籍交易量，與圖書館希望藉書目之間的連結提昇館藏使用率之目標類似。本研究以Amazon.com圖書資料檢索結果為研究對象，探討其介面提供連結書目與原查詢作品之間有何書目連結關係，並比較其間書目關係之異同。
本研究選定《Romeo and Juliet》為檢測對象，因該作品具悠久出版歷史與豐富的出版狀況，有助各頁面間不同之連結檢視。本研究分兩階段檢測書目查詢結果：第一階段以《Romeo and Juliet》進行查詢，因應一般人持續檢視檢索結果之耐性為30至35筆，瀏覽書目資料之上限很少超過100筆（Wiberley, Daugherty, & Danowski, 1995），故選擇結果清單之前百筆資料作為分析對象。檢測結果顯示，此百筆資料所呈現之書目連結關係有9種，分別是等同關係、衍生關係、描述關係、內容關係、伴隨關係、整體－部份關係、著者關係、主題關係，與相同題名或部份題名而關聯之題名關係。
第二階段檢測是單筆書目資料連結情形的詳細分析，因前測時發現Amazon.com平均約五筆書目紀錄所呈現之資訊區塊變化會達飽和，故由前百筆書目取樣，選擇五筆與《Romeo and Juliet》有關之不同出版狀況的書目紀錄，各就其頁面中呈現之資料鏈結狀況分析關係類型。第二階段分析所得的連結關係包括：等同關係、衍生關係、著者關係、主題關係、經顧客瀏覽而關聯之關係、作品因系統分析與推薦而關聯之關係、經購買交易而關聯之關係、因書評作者而關聯之關係、經顧客列入書單而關聯之關係、經顧客設為相同標籤而關聯之關係、經系統廣告而關聯之關係、因引用與被引用而關聯之關係、同一關鍵詞組而關聯之關係，共計13種。其中有九種為與圖書館線上目錄之傳統書目關係不同的連結關係，這些連結關係是因顧客與系統兩項因素而產生，使同一頁面複合多元關聯與書籍連結，讓顧客得以看到更多作品或物件。
Amazon.com檢索結果頁面之書籍關係的呈現，有其優缺點，其中值得圖書館線上目錄作為連結設計之參考者，包括：一、每筆書目紀錄頁面所呈現之資訊區塊、鏈結項目依顧客點閱、書評等行為而彈性呈現鏈結，使每筆書目頁面呈現之書籍不盡相同，而吸引顧客瀏覽佇留網站，亦增進其他書籍之曝光率。二、不同筆書目紀錄之有些同樣名稱之鏈結項目，會連至相同頁面；在檢測樣本所呈現的書籍，亦因關聯而使部份書籍會交叉重複呈現。這些重複之鏈結狀況，使書目訊息在同一頁面透過不同連結點傳遞給顧客，增進瀏覽印象。三、透過大量鏈結與重複曝光的書籍呈現方式，使用者在同一檢索活動中，得直接展開瀏覽活動，此種書目服務模式，正符合讀者理想與資訊服務潮流之模式（SOPAG of the University of California Libraries, 2005）。

The library catalogue is the most important tool to bridge a library’s collection and its users. Nowadays, users are often faced with the problem of information overload and find it difficult to search for relevant and useful information. Thus, how to provide a better platform and mechanism to enhance users’ searching experiences has become a very important issue. One of the possible directions is to improve the way that search results are displayed. Traditionally, libraries prefer to catalog each book as an individual bibliographic entity. This practice will not be able to collocate related works properly. Moreover, people are getting used to the search interface provided by Google or Amazon.com, this change makes the aforementioned practice a more critical issue.
Amazon.com is the first and the most successful Internet bookstore. Amazon.com employs some means to keep the visitors continually browsing its products. One of its mechanisms is to create a lot of linkages among its products to encourage its visitors to keep clicking on them. The goal of Amazon.com is to sell more of its products. Similarly, the library wants to increase and facilitate the use of its collection as well. This functional similarity suggests that the library professionals should understand and learn how Amazon.com provides links and how they work. This study, thus, aims to explore the linking relationships and linkage types presented in the book search results of Amazon.com.
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet was chosen as the target work because it is a classic and has many different versions and various formats. The complication of its publishing status is useful in helping us get an overall picture of Amazon.com’s link relationships. The investigation was divided into two stages. First, a search for Romeo and Juliet was conducted on Amazon.com, and the first 100 titles of the search results were selected for further analysis. The reason why the first 100 titles were selected is because most people would not examine more than 100 records during a search session (Wiberley, Daugherty, & Danowski, 1995). The results of the first stage analysis reveal that nine types of linking relationship are found in the first 100 titles. These are equivalence relationships, derivation relationships, descriptive relationships, content relationships, accompanying relationships, whole-part relationships, responsibility relationships, subject relationships, and title relationships.
In the second stage, five titles were purposively selected from the first 100 titles examined in the first stage. These five titles represent the following selection criteria: a version of Romeo and Juliet, a descriptive work of Romeo and Juliet, an adaption of Romeo and Juliet, a translation of Romeo and Juliet, and a version of Romeo and Juliet in different media. The results show that there are 13 types of linking relationships found in the Web pages of these five titles. These relationships comprise of equivalence relationships, derivation relationships, responsibility relationships, subject relationships, items viewed by the same customer relationships, link by system analysis or suggestion relationships, items bought by the same customer relationships, customer review relationships, the same booklist relationships, the same customer tags relationships, link by system advertisement relationships, citation relationships, and the same key phrases relationships. The last 9 kinds of relationships are different from the traditional bibliographic relationships. These linkage relationships are based upon two factors: the relationship is either linked by customers or connected by the system. These relationships can be viewed as shared characteristics relationships as well.
Based on the findings, the researcher then proposes the following suggestions. First, in Amazon.com, the page of each book record comprises of various information blocks. The contents of these information blocks will vary according to user’s browsing movements. In other words, the contents are based on user’s interests and the purpose is to attain the user’s attention. It means that the display of library OPACs could be more targeted toward the users. Second, in Amazon.com, an item might repetitively appear in different information blocks. The purpose is to increase the linkage to the item and enhance the visibility of the item. If we believe that every book has its reader, we should take this approach into consideration when designing an OPAC. Finally, more and more catalog user studies report that users prefer one-stop-shopping system. Amazon.com may not be an ideal information model to satisfy the needs. However, it does demonstrate a model which is focused on attracting and attaining its visitors. From the perspective of bibliographic relationships, it does employ many linking mechanisms that have been neglected by the library professionals. We definitely can learn something from Amazon.com to improve our OPAC systems.

謝 辭 i
中文摘要 iii
英文摘要 v
目　 次 viii
表 次 x
圖 次 xi
第一章　緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 3
第三節 研究限制 4
第四節 名詞解釋 4
第二章 文獻分析 6
第一節 資訊系統中圖書物件之基本關係探討 6
第二節 書目關係之探討 12
第三節 線上目錄呈現檢索結果之相關問題 26
第三章 研究設計與流程 32
第一節 研究個案探討 32
第二節 Amazon.com書目連結狀況前測 37
第三節　檢測對象與檢測方法 43
第四節 研究流程 51
第四章　Amazon.com圖書資料檢測結果與分析 52
第一節 百筆檢索結果清單檢測 52
第二節 單筆書目紀錄檢測 61
第三節　綜合討論 80
第五章　結論與建議 90
第一節 結論 91
第二節　圖書館線上目錄連結設計建議 94
第三節 未來研究建議 99
參考書目 101
中文文獻 101
西文文獻 102
附錄A 各家書目關係表 106
附錄B 《Romeo and Juleit》前百筆檢索結果清單表 109
附錄C　單筆書目紀錄檢測內容表（以A為例） 124
附錄D　單筆書目紀錄檢測結果之書目關係比較表 132

中文文獻
Spector, R.（2000）。亞馬遜AMAZON.COM: 傑夫．貝佐期和他的天下第一店 (AMAZON.COM) (劉孟華譯)。臺北市：遠流。
Weinberger, D.（2008）。亂是一種新商機（Everything is Miscellaneous：The power of the new digital disorder）(周宜芳譯)。臺北市：天下遠見。
汪玉紅（2007）。FRBR對OPAC的影嚮。圖書館理論與實踐，2，29-32。
宋登漢、詹萌（2005）。中外八大OPAC系統的比較與分析。圖書．情報．知識，150，44-46。
呂德章（2008，2月）。圖書館科技應用及資料庫分享之趨勢。漢珍數位圖書股份有限公司（主持），文化、科技應用與閱讀：2008年漢珍公司台北國際書展研討會，台北市。
林明（1997）。書目實體、書目關係和目錄的職能。大學圖書館學報，15(3)，55-56。
林珊如（2001）。書籍網站資訊組織架構與瀏覽介面設計的考量：以亞馬遜網路書店為例。大學圖書館，5(1)，16-32。
高紅（2006）。書目關係的綜合研究。圖書情報工作，50(9)，108-112。
凌網科技股份有限公司（2009）。HyLib圖書館自動化管理系統。上網日期：2009年6月14日。檢自：http://www.hyweb.com.tw/ct.asp?xItem=235&CtNode=400&mp=1
陳琦（2006）。FRBR及其在國內應用的障礙。圖書館雜志，25(10)，16-18。
傳技資訊股份有限公司（2009）。ToKnow!新世代知識探索平台(Library2.0 Knowledge Portal)。上網日期：2009年6月14日。檢自：http://www.transtech.com.tw/info-know.html
張慧銖（2002a）。西洋圖書目錄目的與功能發展之研究。未出版之博士論文，國立臺灣大學圖書館學研究所，臺北市。
張慧銖（2003）。圖書館目錄發展研究。臺北市：文華。
程衛樂（2006）。OPAC與網上書店檢索系統比及啟示。圖書館論壇，26(4)，105-107。
遠東科技大學圖書館（2009）。WebPac2.0 線上公用目錄查詢系統。上網日期：2009年6月14日。檢自：http://www.lib.feu.edu.tw/
盧秀菊（2000）。圖書館目錄之書目關係。國家圖書館館刊，89(2)，123-134。
蘇諼（2007）。大學圖書館網站超連結研究。圖書與資訊學刊，62，22-34。


西文文獻
Amazon.com. (2008). Annual Reports and Proxies. Retrieved February, 29, 2008, from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol-reportsAnnual
Bean, C. A., & Green, R. (2001). Relevance relationships. In C. A. Bean, & R. Green (Eds.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge (chap. 8, pp. 115-132). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub.
Breeding, M. (2007). Thinking about your next OPAC. Computers in libraries, 27(4), 28-30.
Carlyle, A. (1996). Ordering author and work records: An evaluation of collocation in online catalog displays. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(7), 538-554.
Carlyle, A., & Summerlin J. (2002). Transforming catalog displays: Record clustering for works of fiction. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 33(3/4), 13-25.
Casey, M. (2005). OPAC Wishlist. Retrieved December 9, 2007, from Librarycrunch Blog http://www.librarycrunch.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=OPAC+WISHLIST
Catanio, J., Ghoda, A., Pal, A., Yoo, J., Bieber, M., Im, I., & et al. (2002). Relationship analysis: A research plan for enhancing systems analysis for web development. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (pp.186-195) . Retrieved July 3, 2008, from IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY Digital Library.
Calhoun, K. (2006). The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf
Dey, D., Storey, V. C., & Barron, T. M. (2000). Improving database design through the analysis of relationships. ACM Transaction on Database Systems, 24(4), 453-486.
Dunham, B. (2002). Different formats: Linking serial titles for display through bibliographic relationships. Is it possible? Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 26, 3-17.
Eden, B. (2007). Reinventing the OPAC. Library Technology Reports, 43(6), 13-40.
Fattahi, R. (1997). The relevance of cataloguing principles to the online environment: An historical and analytical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Retrieved December 22, 2007, from http://web.um.ac.ir/~fattahi/CHA4.HTM
Green, R.（2001). Relationships in the organization of knowledge: An overview. In C. A. Bean, & R. Green. (Eds.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge (chap.1, pp.3-18). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub.
Hagler, R., & Simmons, P. (1982). The bibliographic record and information tecnhology. Chicago: ALA.
Harvard University (2009). HOLLIS Catalogs. Retrieved July 06, 2009, from http://discovery.lib.harvard.edu/
IFLA Working Group on Content Designators (1980). UNIMARC: Universal MARC format. London: IFLA International Office for UBC.
IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Reocrds (1998). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final report. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf
IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code (2003). Statement of International Cataloguing Principles. Paper reported at The 1st IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, Frankfurt, Germany. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from The Library of Congress at the 67th IFLA Council and General Conference http://www.loc.gov/loc/ifla/imeicc/source/statement-draft_jan05.pdf; Also could retrieve from http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/scatn/news20.pdf
or http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/pdf/statement_chinese.pdf
Indiana University (2008). Indiana University''s online library catalog. Retrieved August 09, 2008, from http://www.iucat.iu.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi/9CPE4jN8TV/B-WELLS/305150460/60/1185/X
Layne, S. S. (1989). Integration and the objectives of the catalog. In E. Svenonius (Ed.) , The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Cataloging (pp.185-195) . San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Leazer, G. H. (1993). A conceptual plan for the description and control of bibliographic works. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Columbia, New York.
Leazer, G. H., & Smiraglia, R. P. (1996). Toward the bibliographic control of works: Derivative bibliographic relationships in an online union catalog. International Conference on Digital Libraries: Proceedings of the first ACM international conference on Digital libraries. Bethesda, Maryland, United States, 36-43. Retrieved July 31, 2008, from The ACM Digital Library.
Marcum, D. B. (2004). The future of cataloging. Library Resources Technical Services, 50(1), 5-9.
Mayernik, M. S. (2007). Bibliographic relationships and FRBR in online catalog collocation. Unpublished master thesis, Library and Information Science of California University, Los Angeles.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2009). Barton Catalog. Retrieved July 06, 2009, from http://library.mit.edu/F?func=find-b-0
McMaster University (2008). Library Catalogue. Retrieved August 01, 2008, from http://www.mcmaster.ca/home.cfm
National Library of Australia (2008). LibraryLabs. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://ll01.nla.gov.au/
NCSU Libraries Online Catalog. Retrieved August 02, 2008, from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/
Peterson, A. (2007). Next generation catalog. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from Western Libraries Home Page website: http://www.library.wwu.edu/info/ngcat.
Petek, M. (2007). Derivative bibliographic relationships in the Slovenian online catalogue COBIB. Journal of Documentation, 63(3), 398-423.
The Queens Borough Public Library (2008). Queens Library. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.queenslibrary.org/index.aspx
Ranganathan, S. R. (1955). Headings and Canons: Comparative study of five catalogue codes. London: G. Blunt.
Riva, P. (2004). Mapping MARC 21 linking ntry fields to FRBR and Tillett''s taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Library Resources and Technical Services, 48(2), 130-143.
Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29, 3-48.
Schneider, K.G. (2006a). How OPACs suck, part 1: Relevance rank (Or the Lack of It) . Retrieved January 09, 2008, from http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html
Schneider, K.G. (2006b). How OPACs suck, part 2: The checklist of shame. Retrieved January 09, 2008, from
http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/04/how-opacs-suck-part-2-the-checklist-of-shame.html
Schneider, K.G. (2006c). How OPACs suck, part 3: The big picture. Retrieved January 09, 2008, from http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/05/how-opacs-suck-part-3-the-big-picture.html
Smiraglia, R. P. (1992). Authority Control and the Extent of Derivative Bibliographic Relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate Library School, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Smiraglia, R. P., & Leazer, G. H. (1999). Derivative bibliographic relationships: The work relationship in a global bibliographic database. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(6), 493-504.
Smiraglia, R. P. (2001). The National of “A Work”: Implications for the organization of knowledge. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press.
SOPAG of the University of California Libraries (2005). Rethinking how we provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California. Retrieved August 2, 2008, from http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf
Tennant, R. (2003a). Library catalogs: The wrong solution. Retrieved February, 23, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA273959.html
Tennant, R. (2003b). The Right Solution: Federated search tools. Retrieved February, 23, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA302427.html
The New York Times (2008). The 10 Best Books of 2007. Retrieved July, 12, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/books/review/10-best-2007.html
The Task Group on the Future of Cataloging at Indiana University (2006). A White Paper on the Future of Cataloging at Indiana University. Retrieved June 29, 2008, from Indiana University Bloomington Libraries Technical Services http://www.iub.edu/~libtserv/pub
Tillett, B. B. (1987). Bibliographic Relationships: Toward a conceptual structure of bibliographic information used in cataloging. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Tillett, B. B. (1991). A taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Library Resources & Technical Services, 35(2), 150-158.
Tillett, B. B. (1992). Bibliographic relationships: An empirical study of the LC Machine-Readable records. Library Resources and Technical Services, 36, 162-188.
Tillett, B. B. (2001). Bibliographic relationships. In C. A. Bean, & R. Green (Eds.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge (chap.2, pp.19-35). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub.
Tillett, B. B. (2005). FRBR and cataloging for the future. Catalog & Classification Quality, 39(3/4), 197-205.
Vellucci, S. L. (1997a). Bibliographic relationship. Retrieved August 2, 2008, from the National Library of Canada Electronic Collection website: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/300/jsc_aacr/bib_rel/r-bibrel.pdf
Vellucci, S. L. (1997b). Bibliographic relationships in music catalogs. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.
Weinberger, D. (2008). Everything Is Miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. New Your: Henry Holt.
Wiberley, S. E., Jr., Daugherty, R. A., & Danowski, J. A. (1995). User persistence in displaying online catalog postings: LUIS. Library Resources & Technical Services, 39(3), 247-264.
Yee, M. M. (1995). What is a work? part 4 : Cataloging theorists and a definition abstract. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 20(2), 21.
Yee, M. M. (1999). Guidelines for OPAC displays. 65th IFLA Council and GeneralConference. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from IFLA http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/papers/098-131e.htm
Yee, M. M. (2007). Will the response of the library profession to the Internet be self-immolation? Retrieved April 21, 2008, from Special Libraries Cataloguing website: http://slc.bc.ca/response.htm
Yoo, J., & Bieber, M. (2000). Finding linking opportunities through relationship-based analysis. ACM, Inc. (Eds), Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 181-190) . Texas: ACM Inc. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from the ACM Digital Library database.