Search (96 results, page 1 of 5)

0.09637429 = product of:
  0.12849905 = sum of:
    0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 4260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03442384 = score(doc=4260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4260)
    0.06369243 = weight(_text_:et in 4260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06369243 = score(doc=4260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 4260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4260)
    0.03038278 = product of:
      0.06076556 = sum of:
        0.06076556 = weight(_text_:al in 4260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06076556 = score(doc=4260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.30380827 = fieldWeight in 4260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Source

¬The Semantic Web : 6th International Semantic Web Conference, 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007, Busan, Korea, November 11-15, 2007 : proceedings. Ed.: Karl Aberer et al

0.06424952 = product of:
  0.08566603 = sum of:
    0.022949224 = weight(_text_:c in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022949224 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042461623 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.020255188 = product of:
      0.040510375 = sum of:
        0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040510375 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?

0.054877207 = product of:
  0.10975441 = sum of:
    0.07430784 = weight(_text_:et in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07430784 = score(doc=3082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.36287874 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
    0.035446577 = product of:
      0.07089315 = sum of:
        0.07089315 = weight(_text_:al in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07089315 = score(doc=3082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.35444298 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we present Dynamic Category Sets, a novel approach that addresses the vocabulary problem for faceted data. In their paper on the vocabulary problem, Furnas et al. note that "the keywords that are assigned by indexers are often at odds with those tried by searchers." Faceted search systems exhibit an interesting aspect of this problem: users do not necessarily understand an information space in terms of the same facets as the indexers who designed it. Our approach addresses this problem by employing a data-driven approach to discover sets of values across multiple facets that best match the query. When there are multiple candidates, we offer a clarification dialog that allows the user to disambiguate them.

0.054877207 = product of:
  0.10975441 = sum of:
    0.07430784 = weight(_text_:et in 1123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07430784 = score(doc=1123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.36287874 = fieldWeight in 1123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1123)
    0.035446577 = product of:
      0.07089315 = sum of:
        0.07089315 = weight(_text_:al in 1123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07089315 = score(doc=1123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.35444298 = fieldWeight in 1123, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

WordHoard defines a multiword unit as a special type of collocate in which the component words comprise a meaningful phrase. For example, "Knight of the Round Table" is a meaningful multiword unit or phrase. WordHoard uses the notion of a pseudo-bigram to generalize the computation of bigram (two word) statistical measures to phrases (n-grams) longer than two words, and to allow comparisons of these measures for phrases with different word counts. WordHoard applies the localmaxs algorithm of Silva et al. to the pseudo-bigrams to identify potential compositional phrases that "stand out" in a text. WordHoard can also filter two and three word phrases using the word class filters suggested by Justeson and Katz.

0.054314356 = product of:
  0.10862871 = sum of:
    0.073545694 = weight(_text_:et in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073545694 = score(doc=1192,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.35915685 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
    0.03508302 = product of:
      0.07016604 = sum of:
        0.07016604 = weight(_text_:al in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07016604 = score(doc=1192,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.3508076 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In the June 2003 issue of D-Lib Magazine, Kenney et al. (2003) discuss a comparative study between Cornell's email reference staff and Google's Answers service. This interesting study provided insights on the potential impact of "computing and simple algorithms combined with human intelligence" for library reference services. As mentioned in the Kenney et al. article, Bill Arms (2000) had discussed the possibilities of automated digital libraries in an even earlier D-Lib article. Arms discusses not only automating reference services, but also another library function that seems to inspire lively debates about automation-metadata creation. While intended to illuminate, these debates sometimes generate more heat than light. In an effort to explore the potential for automating metadata generation, the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) of the Sheridan Libraries at The Johns Hopkins University developed and tested an automated name authority control (ANAC) tool. ANAC represents a component of a digital workflow management system developed in connection with the digital Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music. The evaluation of ANAC followed the spirit of the Kenney et al. study that was, as they stated, "more exploratory than scientific." These ANAC evaluation results are shared with the hope of fostering constructive dialogue and discussions about the potential for semi-automated techniques or frameworks for library functions and services such as metadata creation. The DKC's research agenda emphasizes the development of tools that combine automated processes and human intervention, with the overall goal of involving humans at higher levels of analysis and decision-making. Others have looked at issues regarding the automated generation of metadata. A session at the 2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries was devoted to automatic metadata creation, and a session at the 2004 conference addressed automated name disambiguation. Commercial vendors such as OCLC, Marcive, and LTI have long used automated techniques for matching names to Library of Congress authority records. We began developing ANAC as a component of a larger suite of open source tools to support workflow management for digital projects. This article describes the goals for the ANAC tool, provides an overview of the metadata records used for testing, describes the architecture for ANAC, and concludes with discussions of the methodology and evaluation of the experiment comparing human cataloging and ANAC-generated results.

0.05216291 = product of:
  0.10432582 = sum of:
    0.06884768 = weight(_text_:c in 1266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06884768 = score(doc=1266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.45733082 = fieldWeight in 1266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1266)
    0.035478145 = product of:
      0.07095629 = sum of:
        0.07095629 = weight(_text_:22 in 1266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07095629 = score(doc=1266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.039198004 = product of:
  0.07839601 = sum of:
    0.053077027 = weight(_text_:et in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053077027 = score(doc=231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=231)
    0.025318984 = product of:
      0.050637968 = sum of:
        0.050637968 = weight(_text_:al in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050637968 = score(doc=231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Proceeding ISWC'07/ASWC'07 : Proceedings of the 6th international The semantic web and 2nd Asian conference on Asian semantic web conference. Ed.: K. Aberer et al

0.031358406 = product of:
  0.06271681 = sum of:
    0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 1160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042461623 = score(doc=1160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 1160, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1160)
    0.020255188 = product of:
      0.040510375 = sum of:
        0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 1160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040510375 = score(doc=1160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 1160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper is the second in a series in D-Lib Magazine and describes a workflow management system being developed by the Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) at the Milton S. Eisenhower Library (MSEL) of The Johns Hopkins University. Based on experience from digitizing the Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music, it was apparent that large-scale digitization efforts require a significant amount of human labor that is both time-consuming and costly. Consequently, this workflow management system aims to reduce the amount of human labor and time for large-scale digitization projects. The mission of this second phase of the project ("Levy II") can be summarized as follows: * Reduce costs for large collection ingestion by creating a suite of open-source processes, tools, and interfaces for workflow management * Increase access capabilities by providing a suite of research tools * Demonstrate utility of tools and processes with a subset of the online Levy Collection The cornerstones of the workflow management system include optical music recognition (OMR) software and an automated name authority control system (ANAC). The OMR software generates a logical representation of the score for sound generation, music searching, and musicological research. The ANAC disambiguates names, associating each name with an individual (e.g., the composer Septimus Winner also published under the pseudonyms Alice Hawthorne and Apsley Street, among others). Complementing the workflow tools, a suite of research tools focuses upon enhanced searching capabilities through the development and application of a fast, disk-based search engine for lyrics and music and the incorporation of an XML structure for metadata. The first paper (Choudhury et al. 2001) described the OMR software and musical components of Levy II. This paper focuses on the metadata and intellectual access components that include automated name authority control and the aforementioned search engine.

0.031358406 = product of:
  0.06271681 = sum of:
    0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042461623 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
    0.020255188 = product of:
      0.040510375 = sum of:
        0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040510375 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

From their earliest encounters with the Web, museums have seen an opportunity to move beyond uni-directional communication into an environment that engages their users and reflects a multiplicity of perspectives. Shedding the "Unassailable Voice" (Walsh 1997) in favor of many "Points of View" (Sledge 1995) has challenged traditional museum approaches to the creation and delivery of content. Novel approaches are required in order to develop and sustain user engagement (Durbin 2004). New models of exhibit creation that democratize the curatorial functions of object selection and interpretation offer one way of opening up the museum (Coldicutt and Streten 2005). Another is to use the museum as a forum and focus for community story-telling (Howard, Pratty et al. 2005). Unfortunately, museum collections remain relatively inaccessible even when 'made available' through searchable on-line databases. Museum documentation seldom satisfies the on-line access needs of the broad public, both because it is written using professional terminology and because it may not address what is important to - or remembered by - the museum visitor. For example, an exhibition now on-line at The Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledges "Coco" Chanel only in the brief, textual introduction (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). All of the images of her delightful fashion designs are attributed to "Gabrielle Chanel" (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). Interfaces that organize collections along axes of time or place - such of that of the Timeline of Art History (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005e) - often fail to match users' world-views, despite the care that went into their structuring or their significant pedagogical utility. Critically, as professionals working with art museums we realize that when cataloguers and curators describe works of art, they usually do not include the "subject" of the image itself. Simply put, we rarely answer the question "What is it a picture of?" Unfortunately, visitors will often remember a work based on its visual characteristics, only to find that Web-based searches for any of the things they recall do not produce results.

0.031358406 = product of:
  0.06271681 = sum of:
    0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042461623 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
    0.020255188 = product of:
      0.040510375 = sum of:
        0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040510375 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.023518803 = product of:
  0.047037605 = sum of:
    0.031846214 = weight(_text_:et in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031846214 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.15551946 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
    0.01519139 = product of:
      0.03038278 = sum of:
        0.03038278 = weight(_text_:al in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03038278 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.15190414 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Dewey and the Library of Congress The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a hotbed of intellectual activity for library categorizers. First Melvil Dewey developed his decimal system. Then the Library of Congress (LC) adapted Charles Ammi Cutter's alphanumeric system for its collection. Dewey, the only librarian popularly known for librarianship, had a healthy ego and placed information science at the very beginning of his classifications. The librarians at LC followed Cutter and relegated their profession to the back of their own bus, in the Zs. These two systems became the primary classifications accepted by the library community. I was once chastised at an SLA meeting for daring to design my own systems, and library schools that mainly train people for public and academic institutions reinforce this idea. In addition, LC provides cataloging and call numbers for almost every book commercially published in the United States and quite a few international publications. This is a seductive strategy for libraries that have little money and little time. These two systems contain drawbacks for special libraries. Let's see how they treat Snoopy. I'll be using Dewey for this exercise. Dewey has an index, which facilitates classification analysis. In addition, LC is a larger system, and we have space considerations here. However, other than length, call number building, and self-esteem, there is not much difference in the two theories. Figure 2 shows selected Dewey classifications for Snoopy, beagles, dogs, and animals (Melvil Dewey. Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index. 21st ed. Edited by Joan S. Mitchell, et al. Albany, NY: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 1996). The call numbers are removed to emphasize hierarchy rather than notation. There are 234 categories. Both Dewey and LC are designed to describe the whole of human knowledge. For historic reasons, they do this from the perspective of an educated white male in 19th century America. This perspective presents some problems if your specialty is Snoopy. In "Generalities," newspaper cartoon strips are filed away under "Miscellaneous information, advice, amusement." However, a collection of Charles Schulz cartoons would be shelved way over in "The Arts [right arrow] Drawing and decorative arts," thereby separating two almost equal subjects by a very wide distance. The generic vocabulary required to describe all of human knowledge is also problematic for specialists. In "The Arts [right arrow] Standard subdivisions of fine and decorative arts and iconography," there are five synonyms for miscellaneous before we get to a real subject. Then it's another six facets to get to the dogs.

0.021734547 = product of:
  0.043469094 = sum of:
    0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02868653 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
    0.014782562 = product of:
      0.029565124 = sum of:
        0.029565124 = weight(_text_:22 in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029565124 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2565, 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=2565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

0.021230811 = product of:
  0.084923245 = sum of:
    0.084923245 = weight(_text_:et in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084923245 = score(doc=2480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.41471857 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This communication describes part of a current research carried out at the Université de Technologie de Troyes and funded by a postdoctoral grant from the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture. Under the title "Design and evaluation of a faceted classification for uniform and personal organization of administrative electronic documents", our research investigates the feasibility of creating a faceted and multi-points-of-view classification scheme for administrative document organization and retrieval in online environments.

0.02008057 = product of:
  0.08032228 = sum of:
    0.08032228 = weight(_text_:c in 5412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08032228 = score(doc=5412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.5335526 = fieldWeight in 5412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5412)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02008057 = product of:
  0.08032228 = sum of:
    0.08032228 = weight(_text_:c in 6912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08032228 = score(doc=6912,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.5335526 = fieldWeight in 6912, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6912)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.019137194 = product of:
  0.07654878 = sum of:
    0.07654878 = weight(_text_:et in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07654878 = score(doc=1555,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.37382227 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Introduction Yahoo! is the undisputed king of the Web directories, providing one of the key information navigation tools on the Internet. It has maintained its popularity over many Internet-years as the most visited Web site, against intense competition. This is because it does a good job of shifting, cataloguing and organising the Web [1] . But what would a map of Yahoo!'s hierarchical classification of the Web look like? Would an interactive map of Yahoo!, rather than the conventional listing of sites, be more useful as navigational tool? We can get some idea what a map of Yahoo! might be like by taking a look at ET-Map, a prototype developed by Hsinchun Chen and colleagues in the Artificial Intelligence Lab [2] at the University of Arizona. ET-Map was developed in 1995 as part of innovative research in automatic Internet homepage categorization and it charts a large chunk of Yahoo!, from the entertainment section representing some 110,000 different Web links. The map is a two-dimensional, multi-layered category map; its aim is to provide an intuitive visual information browsing tool. ET-Map can be browsed interactively, explored and queried, using the familiar point-and-click navigation style of the Web to find information of interest.
The View From Above Browsing for a particular piece on information on the Web can often feel like being stuck in an unfamiliar part of town walking around at street level looking for a particular store. You know the store is around there somewhere, but your viewpoint at ground level is constrained. What you really want is to get above the streets, hovering half a mile or so up in the air, to see the whole neighbourhood. This kind of birds-eye view function has been memorably described by David D. Clark, Senior Research Scientist at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science and the Chairman of the Invisible Worlds Protocol Advisory Board, as the missing "up button" on the browser [3] . ET-Map is a nice example of a prototype for Clark's "up-button" view of an information space. The goal of information maps, like ET-Map, is to provide the browser with a sense of the lie of the information landscape, what is where, the location of clusters and hotspots, what is related to what. Ideally, this 'big-picture' all-in-one visual summary needs to fit on a single standard computer screen. ET-Map is one of my favourite examples, but there are many other interesting information maps being developed by other researchers and companies (see inset at the bottom of this page). How does ET-Map work? Here is a sequence of screenshots of a typical browsing session with ET-Map, which ends with access to Web pages on jazz musician Miles Davis. You can also tryout ET-Map for yourself, using a fully working demo on the AI Lab's website [4] . We begin with the top-level map showing forty odd broad entertainment 'subject regions' represented by regularly shaped tiles. Each tile is a visual summary of a group of Web pages with similar content. These tiles are shaded different colours to differentiate them, while labels identify the subject of the tile and the number in brackets telling you how many individual Web page links it contains. ET-Map uses two important, but common-sense, spatial concepts in its organisation and representation of the Web. Firstly, the 'subject regions' size is directly related to the number of Web pages in that category. For example, the 'MUSIC' subject area contains over 11,000 pages and so has a much larger area than the neighbouring area of 'LIVE' which only has 4,300 odd pages. This is intuitively meaningful, as the largest tiles are visually more prominent on the map and are likely to be more significant as they contain the most links. In addition, a second spatial concept, that of neighbourhood proximity, is applied so 'subject regions' closely related in term of content are plotted close to each other on the map. For example, 'FILM' and 'YEAR'S OSCARS', at the bottom left, are neighbours in both semantic and spatial space. This make senses as many things in the real-world are ordered in this way, with things that are alike being spatially close together (e.g. layout of goods in a store, or books in a library). Importantly, ET-Map is also a multi-layer map, with sub-maps showing greater informational resolution through a finer degree of categorization. So for any subject region that contains more than two hundred Web pages, a second-level map, with more detailed categories is generated. This subdivision of information space is repeated down the hierarchy as far as necessary. In the example, the user selected the 'MUSIC' subject region which, not surprisingly, contained many thousands of pages. A second-level map with numerous different music categories is then presented to the user. Delving deeper, the user wants to learn more about jazz music, so clicking on the 'JAZZ' tile leads to a third-level map, a fine-grained map of jazz related Web pages. Finally, selecting the 'MILES DAVIS' subject region leads to more a conventional looking ranking of pages from which the user selects one to download.
ET-Map was created using a sophisticated AI technique called Kohonen self-organizing map, a neural network approach that has been used for automatic analysis and classification of semantic content of text documents like Web pages. I do not pretend to fully understand how this technique works; I tend to think of it as a clever 'black-box' that group together things that are alike [5] . It is a real challenge to automatically classify pages from a very heterogeneous information collection like the Web into categories that will match the conceptions of a typical user. Directories like Yahoo! tend to rely on the skill of human editors to achieve this. ET-Map is an interesting prototype that I think highlights well the potential for a map-based approach to Web browsing. I am surprised none of the major search engines or directories have introduced the option of mapping results. Although, I am sure many are working on ideas. People certainly need all the help they get, as Web growth shows no sign of slowing. Just last month it was reported that the Web had surpassed one billion indexable pages [6].

0.017387636 = product of:
  0.034775272 = sum of:
    0.022949224 = weight(_text_:c in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022949224 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.011826049 = product of:
      0.023652097 = sum of:
        0.023652097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023652097 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.01721192 = product of:
  0.06884768 = sum of:
    0.06884768 = weight(_text_:c in 1342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06884768 = score(doc=1342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.45733082 = fieldWeight in 1342, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1342)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.01721192 = product of:
  0.06884768 = sum of:
    0.06884768 = weight(_text_:c in 1282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06884768 = score(doc=1282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.45733082 = fieldWeight in 1282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1282)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.01721192 = product of:
  0.06884768 = sum of:
    0.06884768 = weight(_text_:c in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06884768 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.45733082 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)