Search (69 results, page 1 of 4)

0.13157946 = product of:
  0.17543927 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=1161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
    0.08000484 = weight(_text_:search in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08000484 = score(doc=1161,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
    0.05471077 = product of:
      0.10942154 = sum of:
        0.10942154 = weight(_text_:engine in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10942154 = score(doc=1161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.41372913 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

With the development of the World Wide Web, the "information search" has grown to be a significant business sector of a global, competitive and commercial market. Powerful players have entered this market, such as commercial internet search engines, information portals, multinational publishers and online content integrators. Will Google, Yahoo or Microsoft be the only portals to global knowledge in 2010? If libraries do not want to become marginalized in a key area of their traditional services, they need to acknowledge the challenges that come with the globalisation of scholarly information, the existence and further growth of the academic internet

0.12927133 = product of:
  0.17236176 = sum of:
    0.023270661 = weight(_text_:web in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023270661 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.07918424 = weight(_text_:search in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07918424 = score(doc=1196,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.06990685 = product of:
      0.1398137 = sum of:
        0.1398137 = weight(_text_:engine in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1398137 = score(doc=1196,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.52864367 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This article describes the journey from the conception of and vision for a modern search-engine-based search environment to its technological realisation. In doing so, it takes up the thread of an earlier article on this subject, this time from a technical viewpoint. As well as presenting the conceptual considerations of the initial stages, this article will principally elucidate the technological aspects of this journey. The starting point for the deliberations about development of an academic search engine was the experience we gained through the generally successful project "Digital Library NRW", in which from 1998 to 2000-with Bielefeld University Library in overall charge-we designed a system model for an Internet-based library portal with an improved academic search environment at its core. At the heart of this system was a metasearch with an availability function, to which we added a user interface integrating all relevant source material for study and research. The deficiencies of this approach were felt soon after the system was launched in June 2001. There were problems with the stability and performance of the database retrieval system, with the integration of full-text documents and Internet pages, and with acceptance by users, because users are increasingly performing the searches themselves using search engines rather than going to the library for help in doing searches. Since a long list of problems are also encountered using commercial search engines for academic use (in particular the retrieval of academic information and long-term availability), the idea was born for a search engine configured specifically for academic use. We also hoped that with one single access point founded on improved search engine technology, we could access the heterogeneous academic resources of subject-based bibliographic databases, catalogues, electronic newspapers, document servers and academic web pages.

0.11378473 = product of:
  0.15171297 = sum of:
    0.032909684 = weight(_text_:web in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032909684 = score(doc=1205,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
    0.064653665 = weight(_text_:search in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064653665 = score(doc=1205,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.37625307 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
    0.054149617 = product of:
      0.10829923 = sum of:
        0.10829923 = weight(_text_:engine in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10829923 = score(doc=1205,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.40948564 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Music websites are ubiquitous, and music downloads, such as MP3, are a major source of Web traffic. As the amount of musical content increases and the Web becomes an important mechanism for distributing music, we expect to see a rising demand for music search services. Many currently available music search engines rely on file names, song title, composer or performer as the indexing and retrieval mechanism. These systems do not make use of the musical content. We believe that a more natural, effective, and usable music-information retrieval (MIR) system should have audio input, where the user can query with musical content. We are developing a system called MusArt for audio-input MIR. With MusArt, as with other audio-input MIR systems, a user sings or plays a theme, hook, or riff from the desired piece of music. The system transcribes the query and searches for related themes in a database, returning the most similar themes, given some measure of similarity. We call this "retrieval by query." In this paper, we describe the architecture of MusArt. An important element of MusArt is metadata creation: we believe that it is essential to automatically abstract important musical elements, particularly themes. Theme extraction is performed by a subsystem called MME, which we describe later in this paper. Another important element of MusArt is its support for a variety of search engines, as we believe that MIR is too complex for a single approach to work for all queries. Currently, MusArt supports a dynamic time-warping search engine that has high recall, and a complementary stochastic search engine that searches over themes, emphasizing speed and relevancy. The stochastic search engine is discussed in this paper.

0.109652326 = product of:
  0.1462031 = sum of:
    0.041137107 = weight(_text_:web in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041137107 = score(doc=1909,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = 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)
    0.06598687 = weight(_text_:search in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06598687 = score(doc=1909,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=1909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".

Theme

Semantic Web

0.09498589 = product of:
  0.18997177 = sum of:
    0.055991717 = weight(_text_:search in 2420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055991717 = score(doc=2420,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 2420, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2420)
    0.13398007 = sum of:
      0.09378988 = weight(_text_:engine in 2420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09378988 = score(doc=2420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049439456 = queryNorm
          0.35462496 = fieldWeight in 2420, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2420)
      0.04019018 = weight(_text_:22 in 2420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04019018 = score(doc=2420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049439456 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2420, 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=2420)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The German information science community - with the support of the two main funding agencies in Germany - will develop a scientific portal, vascoda, for cross-searching distributed metadata collections. In platitudinous words, one of the services of vascoda is going to be a ldquoGooglerdquo-like search for the academic community, an easy to use, yet sophisticated search-engine to supply information on high-quality resources from different media and technical environments. Reaching this objective requires considerable standardisation activity amongst the main players to harmonise the already existing services (e.g. regarding metadata, protocols, etc.). The co-operation amongst the participants including both of the funding agencies is creating a unique team-work situation in Germany thus strengthening the information science community.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003

0.093985304 = product of:
  0.12531374 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 4219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=4219,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4219, 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=4219)
    0.057146307 = weight(_text_:search in 4219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057146307 = score(doc=4219,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 4219, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4219)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 4219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=4219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 4219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This article proposes a process to retrieve the URL of a document for which metadata records exist in a digital library catalog but a pointer to the full text of the document is not available. The process uses results from queries submitted to Web search engines for finding the URL of the corresponding full text or any related material. We present a comprehensive study of this process in different situations by investigating different query strategies applied to three general purpose search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN) and two specialized ones (Scholar and CiteSeer), considering five user scenarios. Specifically, we have conducted experiments with metadata records taken from the Brazilian Digital Library of Computing (BDBComp) and The DBLP Computer Science Bibliography (DBLP). We found that Scholar was the most effective search engine for this task in all considered scenarios and that simple strategies for combining and re-ranking results from Scholar and Google significantly improve the retrieval quality. Moreover, we study the influence of the number of query results on the effectiveness of finding missing information as well as the coverage of the proposed scenarios.

0.0816728 = product of:
  0.108897075 = sum of:
    0.04030597 = weight(_text_:web in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04030597 = score(doc=2799,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.24981049 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
    0.03732781 = weight(_text_:search in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03732781 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.21722981 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
    0.031263296 = product of:
      0.06252659 = sum of:
        0.06252659 = weight(_text_:engine in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06252659 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.23641664 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.

0.0760199 = product of:
  0.10135986 = sum of:
    0.061568383 = weight(_text_:web in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061568383 = score(doc=1447,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.38159183 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.026394749 = weight(_text_:search in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026394749 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.013396727 = product of:
      0.026793454 = sum of:
        0.026793454 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026793454 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.07297522 = product of:
  0.14595044 = sum of:
    0.12585534 = weight(_text_:web in 2733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12585534 = score(doc=2733,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.780033 = fieldWeight in 2733, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2733)
    0.02009509 = product of:
      0.04019018 = sum of:
        0.04019018 = weight(_text_:22 in 2733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04019018 = score(doc=2733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2733, 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=2733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While the Web has grown significantly in recent years, some portions of the Web remain largely underdeveloped, as shown in a lack of high-quality content and functionality. An example is the Arabic Web, in which a lack of well-structured Web directories limits users' ability to browse for Arabic resources. In this research, we proposed an approach to building Web directories for the underdeveloped Web and developed a proof-of-concept prototype called the Arabic Medical Web Directory (AMedDir) that supports browsing of over 5,000 Arabic medical Web sites and pages organized in a hierarchical structure. We conducted an experiment involving Arab participants and found that the AMedDir significantly outperformed two benchmark Arabic Web directories in terms of browsing effectiveness, efficiency, information quality, and user satisfaction. Participants expressed strong preference for the AMedDir and provided many positive comments. This research thus contributes to developing a useful Web directory for organizing the information in the Arabic medical domain and to a better understanding of how to support browsing on the underdeveloped Web.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:57:50

0.06059847 = product of:
  0.12119694 = sum of:
    0.046541322 = weight(_text_:web in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046541322 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1468, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1468)
    0.07465562 = weight(_text_:search in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07465562 = score(doc=1468,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.43445963 = fieldWeight in 1468, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1468)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This comprehensive volume offers usable information for people at all levels of Internet savvy. It can teach librarians, students, and patrons how to search the Internet more systematically. It also helps information professionals design more efficient, effective search engines and Web pages.

0.055851623 = product of:
  0.11170325 = sum of:
    0.06504348 = weight(_text_:web in 1905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06504348 = score(doc=1905,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 1905, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1905)
    0.046659768 = weight(_text_:search in 1905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046659768 = score(doc=1905,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 1905, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1905)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to argue that digital library retrieval should be based on semantic representations and propose a semantic infrastructure for digital libraries. Design/methodology/approach - The approach taken is formal model based on subject representation for digital libraries. Findings - Search engines and search techniques have fallen short of user expectations as they do not give context based retrieval. Deploying semantic web technologies would lead to efficient and more precise representation of digital library content and hence better retrieval. Though digital libraries often have metadata of information resources which can be accessed through OAI-PMH, much remains to be accomplished in making digital libraries semantic web compliant. This paper presents a semantic infrastructure for digital libraries, that will go a long way in providing them and web based information services with products highly customised to users needs. Research limitations/implications - Here only a model for semantic infrastructure is proposed. This model is proposed after studying current user-centric, top-down models adopted in digital library service architectures. Originality/value - This paper gives a generic model for building semantic infrastructure for digital libraries. Faceted ontologies for digital libraries is just one approach. But the same may be adopted by groups working with different approaches in building ontologies to realise efficient retrieval in digital libraries.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".

Theme

Semantic Web

0.048112713 = product of:
  0.096225426 = sum of:
    0.057146307 = weight(_text_:search in 4738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057146307 = score(doc=4738,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 4738, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4738)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 4738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=4738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 4738, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - To investigate ways of demonstrating how portal implementations positively alter user information retrieval behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece reflecting on existing evidence about the nature of portal implementations, which extrapolates trends in user behaviour on the basis of these reflections. Findings - Although portal technologies probably do offer a way for libraries to create information tools that can compete with "one-stop shop" Internet search engines, there are likely difficulties in their pattern of usage which will have to be detected by effective quality measurement techniques. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the possible pitfalls of using portals to optimise users' information retrieval activity. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical guidelines for the evaluation of the success of library portal implementations. Originality/value - This editorial points out that, because the portal can be defined as a deliberate clone of a typical successful Internet search engine and may be presented to the naïve user in the same terms, the danger is that library portals might also clone the same information habits as Internet search engines, because of their ease of use. In trying to produce a tool that can meet Google on its own terms but with better content, we might reproduce some of the same educational disbenefits as Google: quality information retrieval is not purely a function of content, it is also a function of the user's perceptions and information habits.

0.044478323 = product of:
  0.08895665 = sum of:
    0.049364526 = weight(_text_:web in 30) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049364526 = score(doc=30,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 30, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=30)
    0.03959212 = weight(_text_:search in 30) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03959212 = score(doc=30,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 30, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=30)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Librarians have long sought to select, evaluate, and organize information on the Internet. Efforts began with individual librarians sharing bookmark files of favorite sites and progressed to increasingly large, collaboratively produced general and subject/discipline-specific gateway Web sites or megasites. Megasites list major resources usually in a particular subject area or discipline. Library portals that review, evaluate, and sometimes rate and rank resources grew from some of these Web sites. Both megasites and portals serve as gateways to the Internet. Many portals have developed from relatively small static files into large, dynamically generated databases providing descriptive annotations of selected resources and are increasingly overseen as global projects with formal policies and procedures. Portals now provide increasingly complex and sophisticated browse and search capabilities with a multitude of access points, often including call numbers and subject headings. These are described and compared. Future trends such as increased collaboration among portals; automated location, selection, and cataloging of resources; integration of multiple resource types; and increased access to full-content and virtual library services are also discussed.

0.043898437 = product of:
  0.087796874 = sum of:
    0.041137107 = weight(_text_:web in 2559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041137107 = score(doc=2559,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2559, 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=2559)
    0.046659768 = weight(_text_:search in 2559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046659768 = score(doc=2559,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2559, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2559)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the ways in which Canadian digital library collections have incorporated knowledge organization systems into their search interfaces. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of data-gathering techniques was used. These were as follows: a review of the literature related to the application of knowledge organization systems, deep scanning of Canadian governmental and academic institutions web sites on the web, identify and contact researchers in the area of knowledge organization, and identify and contact people in the governmental organizations who are involved in knowledge organization and information management. Findings - A total of 33 digital collections were identified that have made use of some type of knowledge organization system. Thesauri, subject heading lists and classification schemes were the widely used knowledge organization systems in the surveyed Canadian digital library collections. Research limitations/implications - The target population for this research was limited to governmental and academic digital library collections. Practical implications - An evaluation of the knowledge organization systems interfaces showed that searching, browsing and navigation facilities as well as bilingual features call for improvements. Originality/value - This research contributes to the following areas: digital libraries, knowledge organization systems and services and search interface design.

0.043457236 = product of:
  0.08691447 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
    0.046190813 = weight(_text_:search in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046190813 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

For many years metadata has been recognised as a significant component of the digital information environment. Substantial work has gone into creating complex metadata schemes for describing digital content. Yet increasingly Web search engines, and Google in particular, are the primary means of discovering and selecting digital resources, although they make little use of metadata. This article considers how digital libraries can gain more value from their metadata by adapting it for Google users, while still following well-established principles and standards for cataloguing and digital preservation.

0.040518112 = product of:
  0.081036225 = sum of:
    0.05759195 = weight(_text_:web in 3839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05759195 = score(doc=3839,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 3839, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3839)
    0.023444273 = product of:
      0.046888545 = sum of:
        0.046888545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046888545 = score(doc=3839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3839, 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=3839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Libraries have had web presences since the introduction of the World Wide Web. Providing access to information provided by the library has been attempted through various means throughout the years but no method has been as popular or pervasive as the uses of library gateways and portals. Development of gateways and portals in libraries has been affected by many factors many of which have been outside the direct control of libraries or librarians. Both the history of library practice in this area and these external factors have had a substantial impact on the state of library portal and gateway development today.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:27

0.032083966 = product of:
  0.06416793 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
    0.023444273 = product of:
      0.046888545 = sum of:
        0.046888545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046888545 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.028941508 = product of:
  0.057883017 = sum of:
    0.041137107 = weight(_text_:web in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041137107 = score(doc=2754,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
    0.01674591 = product of:
      0.03349182 = sum of:
        0.03349182 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03349182 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article presents an exploratory study of Blobgects, an experimental interface for an online museum catalog that enables social tagging and blogging activity around a set of cultural heritage objects held by a preeminent museum of anthropology and archaeology. This study attempts to understand not just whether social tagging and commenting about these objects is useful but rather whose tags and voices matter in presenting different expert perspectives around digital museum objects. Based on an empirical comparison between two different user groups (Canadian Inuit high-school students and museum studies students in the United States), we found that merely adding the ability to tag and comment to the museum's catalog does not sufficiently allow users to learn about or engage with the objects represented by catalog entries. Rather, the specialist language of the catalog provides too little contextualization for users to enter into the sort of dialog that proponents of Web 2.0 technologies promise. Overall, we propose a more nuanced application of Web 2.0 technologies within museums - one which provides a contextual basis that gives users a starting point for engagement and permits users to make sense of objects in relation to their own needs, uses, and understandings.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:52:32

0.026511833 = product of:
  0.053023666 = sum of:
    0.02036183 = weight(_text_:web in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036183 = score(doc=3821,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 3821, 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=3821)
    0.032661837 = weight(_text_:search in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032661837 = score(doc=3821,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.19007608 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"1. The EU projeet Renardus Renardus is a project funded by the European Commission as part of the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme, part of the European Union's 5th Framework Programme. Partners in Renardus include national libraries, research centres and subject gateway services from Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, co-ordinated by the National Library of the Netherlands. The project aims to develop a Web-based service to enable searching and browsing across a range of distributed European-based information services designed for the academic and research communities - and in particular those services known as subject gateways. These gateways are services that provide access to Internet resources. They tend to be selective with regard to the resources they give access to, and are usually based an the manual creation of descriptive metadata. Services typically provide users with both search and browse facilities, and offen offer hierarchical browse structures based an subject classification schemes (Koch & Day, 1997). Predecessor projects like the EU project DESIRE have already developed solutions for the description of individual resources and for automatic classification at the level of an individual subject gateway using established classification systems. Renardus intends to develop a service that can cross-search and cross-browse a number of distributed subject gateways through the use of a common metadata profile and by the mapping all locally-used classification schemes to a common scheme. A thorough review of existing data models (Becker, et al., 2000) was used as the basis for the agreement of a minimum set of Dublin Core-based metadata elements that could be utilised as a common data model. A comprehensive mapping effort from the individual gateways' metadata element sets and content encoding schemes to the common profile has taken place. This provides the infrastructure for interoperability between all participating databases and thus is the necessary prerequisite for cross-searching."

0.024832705 = product of:
  0.04966541 = sum of:
    0.023270661 = weight(_text_:web in 2812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023270661 = score(doc=2812,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2812, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2812)
    0.026394749 = weight(_text_:search in 2812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026394749 = score(doc=2812,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 2812, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2812)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

From a quantitative and qualitative point of view the ETH Library is offering its users an extensive choice of information services. In this respect all researchers, all scientists and also all students have access to nearly all relevant information. This is one side of the coin. On the other hand, this broad, but also heterogeneous bundle of information sources has disadvantages, which should not be underestimated: The more information services and information channels you have, the more complex is it to find what you want to get for your scientific work. A portal-like integration of all the different information resources is still missing. The vision, the main goal of the project "Knowledge Portal" is, to develop a central access system in terms of a "single-point-of-access" for all electronic information services. This means, that all these sources - from the library's catalogue and the fulltext inhouse applications to external, licensed sources - should be accessible via one central Web service. Although the primary target group for this vision is the science community of the ETH Zurich, the interested public should also be taken into account, for the library has also a nation-wide responsibility.The general idea to launch a complex project like that comes from a survey the library did one and a half years ago. We asked a defined sample of scientists what they expected to get from their library and one constant answer was, that they wanted to have one point of access to all the electronic library services and besides this, the search processes should be as simple as possible. We accepted this demand as an order to develop a "single-point-of-access" to all electronic services the library provides. The presentation gives an overview about the general idea of the project and describes the current status.