Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Heery, R.: Information gateways : collaboration and content (2000) 0.05
    0.046162233 = product of:
      0.092324466 = sum of:
        0.092324466 = sum of:
          0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.042913996 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052098576 = 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)
          0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.049410466 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052098576 = 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)
    
    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
  2. Gardner, T.; Iannella, R.: Architecture and software solutions (2000) 0.01
    0.014117276 = product of:
      0.028234553 = sum of:
        0.028234553 = product of:
          0.056469105 = sum of:
            0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056469105 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:38:24
  3. Peereboom, M.: DutchESS : Dutch Electronic Subject Service - a Dutch national collaborative effort (2000) 0.01
    0.014117276 = product of:
      0.028234553 = sum of:
        0.028234553 = product of:
          0.056469105 = sum of:
            0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056469105 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:39:23
  4. Craven, T.C.: Variations in use of meta tag descriptions by Web pages in different languages (2004) 0.01
    0.010728499 = product of:
      0.021456998 = sum of:
        0.021456998 = product of:
          0.042913996 = sum of:
            0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042913996 = score(doc=2569,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2569, 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=2569)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  5. Dawson, A.: Creating metadata that work for digital libraries and Google (2004) 0.01
    0.010728499 = product of:
      0.021456998 = sum of:
        0.021456998 = product of:
          0.042913996 = sum of:
            0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042913996 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.