Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Mayr, P."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.01
    0.0053233504 = product of:
      0.053233504 = sum of:
        0.053233504 = weight(_text_:web in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053233504 = score(doc=3752,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the Deep Web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the Academic Invisible Web (AIW). We define the Academic Invisible Web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the Invisible Web is central to scien-tific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estima-tion based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the Invisible Web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the Invisible Web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the Academic Invisible Web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the Academic In-visible Web.
    Content
    Bezug zu: Bergman, M.K.: The Deep Web: surfacing hidden value. In: Journal of Electronic Publishing. 7(2001) no.1, S.xxx-xxx. [Vgl. unter: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-01/bergman.html].
  2. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.01
    0.0050501735 = product of:
      0.050501734 = sum of:
        0.050501734 = weight(_text_:web in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050501734 = score(doc=2580,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the deep web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the academic invisible web (AIW). We define the academic invisible web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the invisible web is central to scientific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estimation based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the invisible web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the invisible web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the academic invisible web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the academic invisible web.
  3. Lauser, B.; Johannsen, G.; Caracciolo, C.; Hage, W.R. van; Keizer, J.; Mayr, P.: Comparing human and automatic thesaurus mapping approaches in the agricultural domain (2008) 0.00
    0.004658935 = product of:
      0.023294676 = sum of:
        0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016833913 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
        0.006460763 = product of:
          0.019382289 = sum of:
            0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019382289 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2627, 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=2627)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization systems (KOS), like thesauri and other controlled vocabularies, are used to provide subject access to information systems across the web. Due to the heterogeneity of these systems, mapping between vocabularies becomes crucial for retrieving relevant information. However, mapping thesauri is a laborious task, and thus big efforts are being made to automate the mapping process. This paper examines two mapping approaches involving the agricultural thesaurus AGROVOC, one machine-created and one human created. We are addressing the basic question "What are the pros and cons of human and automatic mapping and how can they complement each other?" By pointing out the difficulties in specific cases or groups of cases and grouping the sample into simple and difficult types of mappings, we show the limitations of current automatic methods and come up with some basic recommendations on what approach to use when.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  4. Mayr, P.; Mutschke, P.; Petras, V.: Reducing semantic complexity in distributed digital libraries : Treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking (2008) 0.00
    0.0023806747 = product of:
      0.023806747 = sum of:
        0.023806747 = weight(_text_:web in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023806747 = score(doc=1909,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  5. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.; Walter, A.-K.: Results from a German terminology mapping effort : intra- and interdisciplinary cross-concordances between controlled vocabularies (2007) 0.00
    0.0011783739 = product of:
      0.011783739 = sum of:
        0.011783739 = weight(_text_:web in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011783739 = score(doc=542,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    In 2004, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative at the GESIS Social Science Information Centre in Bonn (GESIS-IZ), which will find its conclusion this year. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'crossconcordances' between major controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. Cross-concordances are intellectually (manually) created crosswalks that determine equivalence, hierarchy, and association relations between terms from two controlled vocabularies. Most vocabularies have been related bilaterally, that is, there is a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary A to vocabulary B as well as a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary B to vocabulary A (bilateral relations are not necessarily symmetrical). Till August 2007, 24 controlled vocabularies from 11 disciplines will be connected with vocabulary sizes ranging from 2,000 - 17,000 terms per vocabulary. To date more than 260,000 relations are generated. A database including all vocabularies and cross-concordances was built and a 'heterogeneity service' developed, a web service, which makes the cross-concordances available for other applications. Many cross-concordances are already implemented and utilized for the German Social Science Information Portal Sowiport (www.sowiport.de), which searches bibliographical and other information resources (incl. 13 databases with 10 different vocabularies and ca. 2.5 million references).
  6. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.: Building a Terminology Network for Search : the KoMoHe project (2008) 0.00
    9.045068E-4 = product of:
      0.009045068 = sum of:
        0.009045068 = product of:
          0.027135205 = sum of:
            0.027135205 = weight(_text_:22 in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027135205 = score(doc=2618,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2618, 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=2618)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  7. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.: Cross-concordances : terminology mapping and its effectiveness for information retrieval (2008) 0.00
    7.823291E-4 = product of:
      0.007823291 = sum of:
        0.007823291 = product of:
          0.023469873 = sum of:
            0.023469873 = weight(_text_:29 in 2323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023469873 = score(doc=2323,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2323, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2323)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:33:29