Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.007444633 = product of:
  0.026056215 = sum of:
    0.008879616 = product of:
      0.044398077 = sum of:
        0.044398077 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044398077 = score(doc=2538,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 2538, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2538)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=2538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2538, 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=2538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Structured document interchange formats such as XML and SGML are ubiquitous, however, information retrieval systems supporting structured searching are not. Structured searching can result in increased precision. A search for the author "Smith" in an unstructured corpus of documents specializing in iron-working could have a lower precision than a structured search for "Smith as author" in the same corpus. Analysis of XML retrieval languages identifies additional functionality that must be supported including searching at, and broken across multiple nodes in the document tree. A data structure is developed to support structured document searching. Application of this structure to information retrieval is then demonstrated. Document ranking is examined and adapted specifically for structured searching.

Date

14. 8.2004 10:39:22

0.0030527073 = product of:
  0.02136895 = sum of:
    0.02136895 = product of:
      0.053422377 = sum of:
        0.025633242 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025633242 = score(doc=4886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4886, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4886)
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 4886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=4886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 4886, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4886)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Increasingly, XML applications are appearing on the World Wide Web, from e-commerce to information management. In the case of libraries and archives, XML enables more flexible information management and retrieval than using MARC or a relational database management system. Describes a project to explore the use of XML and the EAD, and the development of a prototype electronic finding aid. It focuses on the technical aspects, and reviews the options available and the choices made. This is done within the setting of a small- to medium-sized archive with minimal tools and resources.

0.0021032572 = product of:
  0.0147228 = sum of:
    0.0147228 = product of:
      0.0294456 = sum of:
        0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0294456 = score(doc=720,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

28. 1.2006 19:01:22

8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=2118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2118)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

8.0203614E-4 = product of:
  0.0056142528 = sum of:
    0.0056142528 = product of:
      0.028071264 = sum of:
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=3373,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A band of archivists and IT professionals at Harvard took on a project to convert nearly two million descriptions of archival collection components from marked-up text into the ArchivesSpace archival metadata management system. Starting in the mid-1990s, Harvard was an alpha implementer of EAD, an SGML (later XML) text markup language for electronic inventories, indexes, and finding aids that archivists use to wend their way through the sometimes quirky filing systems that bureaucracies establish for their records or the utter chaos in which some individuals keep their personal archives. These pathfinder documents, designed to cope with messy reality, can themselves be difficult to classify. Portions of them are rigorously structured, while other parts are narrative. Early documents predate the establishment of the standard; many feature idiosyncratic encoding that had been through several machine conversions, while others were freshly encoded and fairly consistent. In this paper, we will cover the practical and technical challenges involved in preparing a large (900MiB) corpus of XML for ingest into an open-source archival information system (ArchivesSpace). This case study will give an overview of the project, discuss problem discovery and problem solving, and address the technical challenges, analysis, solutions, and decisions and provide information on the tools produced and lessons learned. The authors of this piece are Kate Bowers, Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards at the Harvard University Archive, and Dave Mayo, a Digital Library Software Engineer for Harvard's Library and Technology Services. Kate was heavily involved in both metadata analysis and later problem solving, while Dave was the sole full-time developer assigned to the migration project.

6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=2241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Intertextual semantics is a semiotics-based approach to the design of communication artefacts primarily aimed at modeling XML structured documents. SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a specification currently under development at the W3C that allows expressing various types of controlled vocabularies in XML. In this article, we show through an example how intertextual semantics could be applied to controlled vocabularies expressed in SKOS, and argue that it could facilitate the communication of meaning among the various persons who interact with a controlled vocabulary.