Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0030503988 = product of:
  0.04575598 = sum of:
    0.04575598 = sum of:
      0.018273093 = weight(_text_:information in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018273093 = score(doc=4866,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027482886 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, 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=4866)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Information subject gateways provide targeted discovery services for their users, giving access to Web resources selected according to quality and subject coverage criteria. Information gateways recognise that they must collaborate on a wide range of issues relating to content to ensure continued success. This report is informed by discussion of content activities at the 1999 Imesh Workshop. The author considers the implications for subject based gateways of co-operation regarding coverage policy, creation of metadata, and provision of searching and browsing across services. Other possibilities for co-operation include working more closely with information providers, and diclosure of information in joint metadata registries

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54

Source

Online information review. 24(2000) no.1, S.40-45

Theme

Information Gateway

3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 1279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=1279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,

3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 1280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=1280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of digital information. 2(2002) no.2,

1.6278966E-4 = product of:
  0.0024418447 = sum of:
    0.0024418447 = product of:
      0.0048836893 = sum of:
        0.0048836893 = weight(_text_:information in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0048836893 = score(doc=1210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

* Agencies maintaining directories of data elements in a domain area in accordance with ISO/IEC 11179 (This standard specifies good practice for data element definition as well as the registration process. Example implementations are the National Health Information Knowledgebase hosted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Environmental Data Registry hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency.); * The xml.org directory of the Extended Markup Language (XML) document specifications facilitating re-use of Document Type Definition (DTD), hosted by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS); * The MetaForm database of Dublin Core usage and mappings maintained at the State and University Library in Goettingen; * The Semantic Web Agreement Group Dictionary, a database of terms for the Semantic Web that can be referred to by humans and software agents; * LEXML, a multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional RDF Dictionary for the legal world; * The SCHEMAS registry maintained by the European Commission funded SCHEMAS project, which indexes several metadata element sets as well as a large number of activity reports describing metadata related activities and initiatives. Metadata registries essentially provide an index of terms. Given the distributed nature of the Web, there are a number of ways this can be accomplished. For example, the registry could link to terms and definitions in schemas published by implementers and stored locally by the schema maintainer. Alternatively, the registry might harvest various metadata schemas from their maintainers. Registries provide 'added value' to users by indexing schemas relevant to a particular 'domain' or 'community of use' and by simplifying the navigation of terms by enabling multiple schemas to be accessed from one view. An important benefit of this approach is an increase in the reuse of existing terms, rather than users having to reinvent them. Merging schemas to one view leads to harmonization between applications and helps avoid duplication of effort. Additionally, the establishment of registries to index terms actively being used in local implementations facilitates the metadata standards activity by providing implementation experience transferable to the standards-making process.