Search (350 results, page 17 of 18)

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 143, 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=143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 3.2007 16:22:24

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2569,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2569, 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=2569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30.12.2008 19:38:22

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2738, 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=2738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 12:51:47

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2753, 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=2753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:50:30

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2756, 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=2756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:57:23

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2938, 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=2938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present CopeOpi, an opinion-analysis system, which extracts from the Web opinions about specific targets, summarizes the polarity and strength of these opinions, and tracks opinion variations over time. Objects that yield similar opinion tendencies over a certain time period may be correlated due to the latent causal events. CopeOpi discovers relationships among objects based on their opinion-tracking plots and collocations. Event bursts are detected from the tracking plots, and the strength of opinion relationships is determined by the coverage of these plots. To evaluate opinion mining, we use the NTCIR corpus annotated with opinion information at sentence and document levels. CopeOpi achieves sentence- and document-level f-measures of 62% and 74%. For relationship discovery, we collected 1.3M economics-related documents from 93 Web sources over 22 months, and analyzed collocation-based, opinion-based, and hybrid models. We consider as correlated company pairs that demonstrate similar stock-price variations, and selected these as the gold standard for evaluation. Results show that opinion-based and collocation-based models complement each other, and that integrated models perform the best. The top 25, 50, and 100 pairs discovered achieve precision rates of 1, 0.92, and 0.79, respectively.

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4195, 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=4195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:16:14

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=1622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1622, 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=1622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2635, 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=2635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 11:25:47

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 11:50:46

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3343, 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=3343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

0.0034976925 = product of:
  0.01399077 = sum of:
    0.01399077 = product of:
      0.02798154 = sum of:
        0.02798154 = weight(_text_:software in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02798154 = score(doc=1418,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15496688 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Angesichts der Datenmengen scheint es, dass Bibliotheken beim Sammeln digitaler Dokumente rigider auswählen müssen. Weit drastischer als heute, wo noch immer der Grundgedanke wirkt, spätere Generationen müssten selbst den Wert der Quellen bewerten dürfen. Die DDB denkt laut Kathrin Ansorge an getrennte Sammlungsverfahren: "einerseits für Dokumente, die einen gesicherten Publikationsprozess wie etwa in Verlagen erfahren haben, andererseits für den großen Rest, den man mit Suchrobotern abgreifen könnte". Beim Sammeln werden Bibliotheken dieselben Schwierigkeiten haben, mit denen das "Internet Archive" heute schon kämpft: Urheber schützen ihr Material; Passworte sind das kleinere Problem. Eine gesetzliche Ablieferungspflicht wie bei gedrucktem Material könnte da helfen. Schwieriger sind Dateiformate, die schon heute das Auslesen der Dokumente ebenso wie zu häufige Transfers verhindern. Manche Verlage legen gar ein Verfallsdatum fest. Diese Verschlüsselungen sind nur schwer zu knacken. Die Versuche könnte ein novelliertes Urheberrecht gar strafbar machen. Aber auch Dateiformate ohne solche Schutzmechanismen werden zum Problem. Denn Dokumente sollen ja nicht nur auf Deponien gesammelt werden, sondern vor allem in Archiven zugänglich sein. Die drohende Gefahr: Die Soft- und Hardware zum Lesen bestimmter Formate ist in wenigen Jahren verschwunden. Die Dokumente sind dann so wertvoll wie Text in Geheimtinte ohne das Wissen, wie man sie sichtbar macht. Hier haben digitale Archive drei Möglichkeiten. Die erste ist Migration. Alte Software wird für jede neue Computergeneration neu programmiert. Das ist aufwendig. Und vor allem gehen Informationen verloren, während neue hinzukommen. Es ist so, als würde man ein Gemälde alle fünf Jahre abmalen. Wie Rembrandts Nachtwache dann heute aussähe? Eine andere Möglichkeit ist die Emulation. Dabei ahmen spezielle Programme alte Hardware nach. Man müsste dann nicht jede Software neu schreiben, weil sie sich in einer vertrauten, da emulierten Umgebung wähnt. Der Nachteil: Alle paar Jahre ist eine neue Emulation nötig, um die alten Emulatoren mit neuer Hardware nutzen zu können. Ein auf kurze Sicht bequemer, auf lange Sicht gefährlicher Teufelskreis, sagt David Bearman, Präsident des kanadischen Beratungsunternehmens "Archives and Museum Informatics": "Das gibt Managern und Regierungen auf der Welt eine Entschuldigung, um Entscheidungen herauszuzögern, die jetzt getroffen werden müssen. Eine dritte Möglichkeit wäre, alle Dateien in einer zweiten Version zu speichern, die auf einem so genannten Universal Virtual Computer lesbar ist. Der existiert als Beschreibung auf wenigen Seiten Papier. Er ist einfach und umfasst die bislang unveränderten und in Zukunft sicher reproduzierbaren technischen Grundsätze eines Rechners wie Arbeitsspeicher, Hauptprozessor und dergleichen. Diese Möglichkeit erwägt die Koninklijke Bibliotheek der Niederlande. Sie hat IBM mit der Entwicklung eines Depotsystem für digitale Dokumente beauftragt. Ein auf mittlere Sicht angelegtes Programm läuft schon. Die langfristige, gegenüber Hard- und Softwareänderungen resistente Erhaltung soll auf dem UVC-Konzept aufbauen. Dass es im Prinzip funktioniert, belegt ein Prototyp: Ein PDF-Dokument wurde in das Format für einen UVC konvertiert und ohne Informationsverlust wieder ausgelesen. Noch besteht Hoffnung für das digitale Kulturerbe. Sogar das von der BBC 1986 gesammelte Material konnten Forscher - nach mehr als einem halben Jahr Arbeit - Ende vergangenen Jahres auslesen. Aller- dings wissen sie noch nicht, wie sie es nun für die Ewigkeit archivieren sollen - oder zumindest für die nächsten 16 Jahre."

0.0034625386 = product of:
  0.013850154 = sum of:
    0.013850154 = product of:
      0.027700309 = sum of:
        0.027700309 = weight(_text_:software in 2223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027700309 = score(doc=2223,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15340936 = fieldWeight in 2223, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2223)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in JASIST 55(2004) no.1, S.278-279 (P.K. Nayar): "We live in an increasingly wired and digitized world. Work, leisure, shopping, research, and interpersonal communications are all mediated by the new technologies. The present volume begins with the assumption that the Internet is not a special system, it is routinely incorporated into the everyday. Wellman and Haythornthwaite note that increasing access and commitment (doing more types of things online), domestication (online access from home), and longer work hours (working from anywhere, including home) are trends in everyday Internet use. In their elaborate introduction to the volume, Wellman and Haythornthwaite explore the varied dimensions of these trends in terms of the digital divide, the demographic issues of Internet use and online behavior (that is, social interaction). This sets the tone for the subsequent essays, most of which are voyages of discovery, seeking patterns of use and behavior. The focus of individual essays is dual: empirical study/data and theoretical conclusions that range from the oracular to the commentary. Readers will find this approach useful because the conclusions drawn are easily verified against statistics (a major part of the volume is comprised of tables and databases). It is also consciously tilted at the developed countries where Internet use is extensive. However, the effort at incorporating data from ethnic communities within developed nations, Japan and India, renders the volume more comprehensive. Some gaps are inevitable in any volume that seeks to survey anything as vast as the role of the Internet in everyday life. There is almost no discussion of subcultural forms that have mushroomed within and because of cyberspace. Now technology, we know, breeds its own brand of discontent. Surely a discussion of hackers, who, as Douglas Thomas has so clearly demonstrated in his book Hacker Culture (2002), see themselves as resisting the new "culture of secrecy" of corporate and political mainstream culture, is relevant to the book's ideas? If the Internet stands for a whole new mode of community building, it also stands for increased surveillance (particularly in the wake of 9/11). Under these circumstances, the use of Computer-mediated communication to empower subversion or to control it assumes enormous politicoeconomic significance. And individual Internet users come into this an an everyday basis, as exemplified by the American housewives who insinuate themselves into terrorist web/chat spaces as sympathizers and Crack their identities for the FBI, CIA, and other assorted agencies to follow up on. One more area that could have done with some more survey and study is the rise of a new techno-elite. Techno-elitism, as symbolized images of the high-power "wired" executive, eventually becomes mainstream culture. Those who control the technology also increasingly control the information banks. The studies in the present volume explore age differentials and class distinctions in the demography of Internet users, but neglect to account for the specific levels of corporate/scientific/political hierarchy occupied by the techno-savvy. R.L. Rutsky's High Techne (1999) has demonstrated how any group-hackers, corporate heads, software engineers-with a high level of technological expertise modulate into icons of achievement. Tim Jordan in his Cyberpower (1999) and Chris Hables Gray in Cyborg Citizen (2001) also emphasize the link between technological expertise, the rise of a techno-elite, and "Cyberpower." However, it would be boorish, perhaps, to point out such lapses in an excellent volume. The Internet in Everyday Life will be useful to students of cultural, communication, and development studies, cyberculture and social studies of technology."

0.0034625386 = product of:
  0.013850154 = sum of:
    0.013850154 = product of:
      0.027700309 = sum of:
        0.027700309 = weight(_text_:software in 1170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027700309 = score(doc=1170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15340936 = fieldWeight in 1170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE) seeks to become the world's largest and most authoritative electronic source of information about the environments of Earth and their interactions with society. It is a free, fully searchable collection of articles written by scholars, professionals, educators, and experts who collaborate and review each other's work with oversight from an International Advisory Board. The articles are written in non-technical language and are available for free, with no commercial advertising to students, educators, scholars, professionals, decision makers, as well as to the general public. The scope of the Encyclopedia of Earth is the environment of the Earth broadly defined, with particular emphasis on the interaction between society and the natural spheres of the Earth. It will be built on the integrated knowledge from economists to philosophers to span all aspects of the environment. The Encyclopedia is being built bottom-up through the use of a wiki-software that allows users to freely create and edit content. New collaborations, ideas, and entries dynamically evolve in this environment. In this way, the Encyclopedia is a constantly evolving, self-organizing, expert-reviewed, and up-to-date source of environmental information. The motivation behind the Encyclopedia of Earth is simple. Go to GoogleT and type in climate change, pesticides, nuclear power, sustainable development, or any other important environmental issue. Doing so returns millions of results, some fraction of which are authoritative. The remainder is of poor or unknown quality.

0.0034270247 = product of:
  0.013708099 = sum of:
    0.013708099 = product of:
      0.027416198 = sum of:
        0.027416198 = weight(_text_:software in 2073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027416198 = score(doc=2073,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.1518359 = fieldWeight in 2073, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

There is some debate over what exactly constitutes a native XML database. Bourret (2003) favors the wider definition; other authors such as the Butler Group (2002) restrict the use of the term to databases systems designed and built solely for storage and manipulation of XML. Two examples of the lauer (Tamino and eXist) are covered in detailed chapters here but also included in this section is the embedded XML database system, Berkeley DB XML, considered by makers Sleepycat Software to be "native" in that it is capable of storing XML natively but built an top of the Berkeley DB engine. To the uninitiated, the revelation that schemas and DTDs are not required by either Tamino or eXist might seem a little strange. Tamino implements "loose coupling" where the validation behavior can be set to "strict," "lax" (i.e., apply only to parts of a document) or "skip" (no checking), in eXist, schemas are simply optional. Many DTDs and schemas evolve as the XML documents are acquired and so these may adhere to slightly different schemas, thus the database should support queries an similar documents that do not share the same structune. In fact, because of the difficulties in mappings between XML and database (especially relational) schemas native XML databases are very useful for storage of semi-structured data, a point not made in either chapter. The chapter an embedded databases represents a "third way," being neither native nor of the XML-enabled relational type. These databases run inside purpose-written applications and are accessed via an API or similar, meaning that the application developer does not need to access database files at the operating system level but can rely an supplied routines to, for example, fetch and update database records. Thus, end-users do not use the databases directly; the applications do not usually include ad hoc end-user query tools. This property renders embedded databases unsuitable for a large number of situations and they have become very much a niche market but this market is growing rapidly. Embedded databases share an address space with the application so the overhead of calls to the server is reduced, they also confer advantages in that they are easier to deploy, manage and administer compared to a conventional client-server solution. This chapter is a very good introduction to the subject, primers an generic embedded databases and embedded XML databases are helpfully provided before the author moves to an overview of the Open Source Berkeley system. Building an embedded database application makes far greater demands an the software developer and the remainder of the chapter is devoted to consideration of these programming issues.
After several detailed examples of XML, Direen and Jones discuss sequence comparisons. The ability to create scored comparisons by such techniques as sequence alignment is fundamental to bioinformatics. For example, the function of a gene product may be inferred from similarity with a gene of known function but originating from a different organism and any information modeling method must facilitate such comparisons. One such comparison tool, BLAST utilizes a heuristic method has become the tool of choice for many years and is integrated into the NeoCore XMS (XML Management System) described herein. Any set of sequences that can be identified using an XPath query may thus become the targets of an embedded search. Again examples are given, though a BLASTp (protein) search is labeled as being BLASTn (nucleotide sequence) in one of them. Some variants of BLAST are computationally intensive, e.g., tBLASTx where a nucleotide sequence is dynamically translated in all six reading frames and compared against similarly translated database sequences. Though these variants are implemented in NeoCore XMS, it would be interesting to see runtimes for such comparisons. Obviously the utility of this and the other four quite specific examples will depend an your interest in the application area but two that are more research-oriented and general follow them. These chapters (on using XML with inductive databases and an XML warehouses) are both readable critical reviews of their respective subject areas. For those involved in the implementation of performance-critical applications an examination of benchmark results is mandatory, however very few would examine the benchmark tests themselves. The picture that emerges from this section is that no single set is comprehensive and that some functionalities are not addressed by any available benchmark. As always, there is no Substitute for an intimate knowledge of your data and how it is used. In a direct comparison of an XML-enabled and a native XML database system (unfortunately neither is named), the authors conclude that though the native system has the edge in handling large documents this comes at the expense of increasing index and data file size. The need to use legacy data and software will certainly favor the all-pervasive XML-enabled RDBMS such as Oracle 9i and IBM's DB2. Of more general utility is the chapter by Schmauch and Fellhauer comparing the approaches used by database systems for the storing of XML documents. Many of the limitations of current XML-handling systems may be traced to problems caused by the semi-structured nature of the documents and while the authors have no panacea, the chapter forms a useful discussion of the issues and even raises the ugly prospect that a return to the drawing board may be unavoidable. The book concludes with an appraisal of the current status of XML by the editors that perhaps focuses a little too little an the database side but overall I believe this book to be very useful indeed. Some of the indexing is a little idiosyncratic, for example some tags used in the examples are indexed (perhaps a separate examples index would be better) and Ron Bourret's excellent web site might be better placed under "Bourret" rather than under "Ron" but this doesn't really detract from the book's qualities. The broad spectrum and careful balance of theory and practice is a combination that both database and XML professionals will find valuable."

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 6123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=6123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 6123, 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=6123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22.10.2006 10:22:33

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 2426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=2426,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2426, 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=2426)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 2428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=2428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2428, 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=2428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)