Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Green, R."
  1. Green, R.: Description in the electronic environment (1996) 0.04
    0.043557227 = product of:
      0.08711445 = sum of:
        0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060314562 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
        0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026799891 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The significant differences that exist between the print and digital worlds are sometimes felt to diminish the need for bibliographic description in the electronic world. An analysis of these differences, especially with respect to (1) the control of production and distribution of documents and (2) the need for software intermediation, coupled with a discussion of the functions of bibliographic description in the task of document retrieval argue, however, for an increased role for bibliographic description in the electronic world
    Source
    Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green
  2. Green, R.: WordNet (2009) 0.04
    0.043557227 = product of:
      0.08711445 = sum of:
        0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060314562 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
        0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026799891 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Content
    Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044739. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  3. Green, R.: Facet detection using WorldCat and WordNet (2014) 0.03
    0.029149916 = product of:
      0.116599664 = sum of:
        0.116599664 = sum of:
          0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.069064304 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050121464 = queryNorm
              0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 1419, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1419)
          0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.047535364 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.050121464 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1419, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1419)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Because procedures for establishing facets tend toward subjectivity, this pilot project investigates whether the facet structure of a subject literature can be discerned automatically on the basis of its own metadata. Nouns found in the titles of works retrieved from the WorldCat bibliographic database based on Dewey number are mapped against the nodes of the WordNet noun network. Density measures are computed for these nodes to identify nodes best summarizing the title noun data / best corresponding to facets of the subject. Results of the work to date are promising enough to warrant further investigation.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  4. Green, R.: Relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) : plan of study (2008) 0.02
    0.019732658 = product of:
      0.07893063 = sum of:
        0.07893063 = product of:
          0.15786126 = sum of:
            0.15786126 = weight(_text_:project in 3397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.15786126 = score(doc=3397,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.74617106 = fieldWeight in 3397, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3397)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    EPC Exhibit 129-36.1 presented intermediate results of a project to connect Relative Index terms to topics associated with classes and to determine if those Relative Index terms approximated the whole of the corresponding class or were in standing room in the class. The Relative Index project constitutes the first stage of a long(er)-term project to instill a more systematic treatment of relationships within the DDC. The present exhibit sets out a plan of study for that long-term project.
  5. Green, R.: Syntagmatic relationships in index languages : a reassessment (1995) 0.01
    0.006699973 = product of:
      0.026799891 = sum of:
        0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026799891 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Library quarterly. 65(1995) no.4, S.365-385
  6. Green, R.: Development of a relational thesaurus (1996) 0.01
    0.006699973 = product of:
      0.026799891 = sum of:
        0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026799891 = score(doc=5159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5159, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5159)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green
  7. Green, R.: ¬The profession's models of information : a cognitive linguistic analysis (1991) 0.01
    0.0057428335 = product of:
      0.022971334 = sum of:
        0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022971334 = score(doc=2724,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This study establishes 3 predominant cognitive models of information and the information transfer process manifest in the literature of library and information science, based on a linguistic analysis of phrases incoporating the word 'information' from a random sample of abstracts in the LISA database. The direct communication (DC) and indirect communication (IC) models (drawn from Reddy's frameworks of metalinguistic usage) adopt the perspective of the information system; the information-seeking (IS) model takes the viewpoint of the information user. 2 disturbing findings are presented: 1. core elements of the DC and IC models are more weakly supported by the data than are most of the peripheral elements; and 2. even though the IS model presents the information user's perspective, the data emphasise the role of the information system. These findings suggest respectively that the field lacks a coherent model of information transfer per se and that our model of information retrieval is mechanistic, oblivious to the cognitive models of end users
  8. Green, R.: ¬The design of a relational database for large-scale bibliographic retrieval (1996) 0.01
    0.0057428335 = product of:
      0.022971334 = sum of:
        0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022971334 = score(doc=7712,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study, conducted by Maryland University, College of Library and Information Services, to establish the basic logical design of large scale bibliographic databases using the entity relationship (ER) model, with a view to the eventual conversion of the ER based conceptual schemas into relational databases. A fully normalized relational bibliographic database promises relief from the update, insertion, and deletion anomalies that plague bibliographic databases using MARC formats and USMARC formats internally. Presents the conceptual design of a full scale bibliographic database (inclusing bibliographic, authority, holdings, and classification data), based on entity relationship modelling. This design translates easily into a logical relational design. Discusses the treatment of format integration and the differentiation between the intellectual and bibliographic levels of description and between collective and individual levels of description. Unfortunately, the complexities of bibliographic data result in a tension between the semantic integrity of the relatioal approach and the inefficiencies of normalization and decomposition. Outlines compromise approaches to the dilemma
  9. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.00
    0.0042442293 = product of:
      0.016976917 = sum of:
        0.016976917 = product of:
          0.033953834 = sum of:
            0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033953834 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22