Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.003981448 = product of:
  0.06171244 = sum of:
    0.0029333972 = weight(_text_:e in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029333972 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.03078549 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02141793 = queryNorm
        0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.058779042 = weight(_text_:werke in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058779042 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13780719 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.434197 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02141793 = queryNorm
        0.42653102 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.434197 = idf(docFreq=192, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.06451613 = coord(2/31)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

Language

e

6.299958E-4 = product of:
  0.009764935 = sum of:
    0.0024444978 = weight(_text_:e in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024444978 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.03078549 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02141793 = queryNorm
        0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.007320437 = product of:
      0.014640874 = sum of:
        0.014640874 = weight(_text_:29 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014640874 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07534158 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02141793 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06451613 = coord(2/31)

Date

29. 9.2008 14:59:03

Language

e

6.308381E-5 = product of:
  0.0019555981 = sum of:
    0.0019555981 = weight(_text_:e in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019555981 = score(doc=134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.03078549 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02141793 = queryNorm
        0.063523374 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
  0.032258064 = coord(1/31)

Language

e