Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013515606 = product of:
  0.027031211 = sum of:
    0.027031211 = product of:
      0.054062422 = sum of:
        0.054062422 = weight(_text_:22 in 4092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054062422 = score(doc=4092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17466484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049878165 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4092, 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=4092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 22(1995) no.3/4, S.180-181 (M. Hudon)

0.013515606 = product of:
  0.027031211 = sum of:
    0.027031211 = product of:
      0.054062422 = sum of:
        0.054062422 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054062422 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17466484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049878165 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, 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=4685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.011905394 = product of:
  0.023810787 = sum of:
    0.023810787 = product of:
      0.047621574 = sum of:
        0.047621574 = weight(_text_:h in 2324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047621574 = score(doc=2324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12391976 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049878165 = queryNorm
            0.38429362 = fieldWeight in 2324, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Hinweis in NfD 46(1995) H.5, S.320; Bezug über Beuth Verlag

0.007196957 = product of:
  0.014393914 = sum of:
    0.014393914 = product of:
      0.08636348 = sum of:
        0.08636348 = weight(_text_:after in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08636348 = score(doc=4682,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2549131 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049878165 = queryNorm
            0.33879578 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.1107154 = idf(docFreq=724, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4682)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full. This document is written for readers who want a first impression of the capabilities of OWL. It provides an introduction to OWL by informally describing the features of each of the sublanguages of OWL. Some knowledge of RDF Schema is useful for understanding this document, but not essential. After this document, interested readers may turn to the OWL Guide for more detailed descriptions and extensive examples on the features of OWL. The normative formal definition of OWL can be found in the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.

0.0060544796 = product of:
  0.012108959 = sum of:
    0.012108959 = product of:
      0.072653756 = sum of:
        0.072653756 = weight(_text_:21st in 3284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072653756 = score(doc=3284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28635302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049878165 = queryNorm
            0.25372094 = fieldWeight in 3284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3284)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The original Statement of Principles - commonly known as the "Paris Principles" - was approved by the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in 1961. Its goal of serving as a basis for international standardization in cataloguing has certainly been achieved: most of the cataloguing codes that were developed worldwide since that time have followed the Principles strictly or at least to a high degree. More than fifty years later, having a common set of international cataloguing principles is still necessary as cataloguers and users around the world use online catalogues as search and discovery systems. At the beginning of the 21st century, IFLA produced a new statement of principles (published in 2009) applicable to online library catalogues and beyond. The current version has been reviewed and updated in 2014 and 2015, and approved in 2016. The 2009 Statement of Principles replaced and explicitly broadened the scope of the Paris Principles from just textual resources to all types of resources, and from just the choice and form of entry to all aspects of bibliographic and authority data used in library catalogues. It included not only principles and objectives, but also guiding rules that should be included in cataloguing codes internationally, as well as guidance on search and retrieval capabilities. This 2016 edition takes into consideration new categories of users, the open access environment, the interoperability and the accessibility of data, features of discovery tools and the significant change of user behaviour in general. This statement builds on the great cataloguing traditions of the world, as well as on the conceptual models in the IFLA Functional Requirements family.