Search (5336 results, page 267 of 267)

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 2572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=2572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2572)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Review Essay zu: "The power to name: locating the Limits of Subject Representation in Libraries. By Hope A. Olson. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. x, 261 pp. $103.00. ISBN 1-4020-0776-0". This work by Hope A. Olson is a much-pruned and rewritten version of her 1996 dissertation at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Its original version is mentioned because in it she explains more fully the character of the radical feminist deconstructionist approach she brings to her task. However, the muted explanation of her perspective in the present volume does not ultimately alter the character of the work, which is both a polemic against what she concludes are male-dominated subject access tools and an apologia for a feminist understanding or approach to the tools. The central objective of The Power to Name is convincingly to characterize bias in classification and subject heading work, that is, to show that bias thoroughly marginalizes and sometimes excludes women and women minorities altogether. In the process of satisfying this objective the author also provides an etiology for the bias. Thus, the work essentially accomplishes two tasks, each of which will be examined here. Of the first of these two tasks, Olson states that her own analysis of Dewey Decimal Classification numbers and Library of Congress subject headings for eleven sample books "combines a feminist perspective with attention to particular groups of women identifying with one or more of the following: women of colour, African American women, Chicanas, lesbians, Asian American women, working class women, Jewish women, [and] North American Aboriginal women" (184). More specifically, she states that "the literature on cataloguing feminist material and materials for women illustrates that the existing standards include sexist terminology and put topics in uncongenial contexts with a sexist result. That is, they juxtapose them in classifications and references in such a way as to create a pejorative effect ... [T]hey treat women as exceptions to a masculine...

2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

2.5480238E-4 = product of:
  0.0035672332 = sum of:
    0.0035672332 = weight(_text_:information in 1179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035672332 = score(doc=1179,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.068573356 = fieldWeight in 1179, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1179)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Two significant activities within ISO, the International Organisation for Standardization, are underway, each of which has potential implications for the management of content by digital libraries and their users. Moreover these two activities are complementary and have the potential to provide tools for significantly improved identifier interoperability. This article presents a report on these: the first activity investigates the practical implications of interoperability across the family of ISO TC46/SC9 identifiers (better known as the ISBN and related identifiers); the second activity is the implementation of an ontology-based data dictionary that could provide a mechanism for this, the ISO/IEC 21000-6 standard. ISO/TC 46 is the ISO Technical Committee responsible for standards of "Information and documentation". Subcommittee 9 (SC9) of that body is responsible for "Presentation, identification and description of documents": the standards that it manages are identifiers familiar to the content and digital library communities, including the International Standard Book Number (ISBN); International Standard Serial Number (ISSN); International Standard Recording Code (ISRC); International Standard Music Number (ISMN); International Standard Audio-visual Number (ISAN) and the related Version identifier for Audio-visual Works (V-ISAN); and the International Standard Musical Work Code (ISWC). Most recently ISO has introduced the International Standard Text Code (ISTC), and is about to consider standardisation of the DOI system. The ISO identifier schemes provide numbering schemes as labels of entities of "content": many of the identifiers have as referents abstract content entities ("works" rather than a specific physical or digital form: e.g., ISAN, ISWC, ISTC). The existing schemes are numbering management schemes, not tied to any specific implementation (hence for internet "actionability", these identifiers may be incorporated into URN, URI, or DOI formats, etc.). Recently SC9 has requested that new and revised identifier schemes specify mandatory structured metadata to specify the item identified; that metadata is now becoming key to interoperability.
Section 2 below is based extensively on the report of the output from that workshop, with minor editorial changes to reflect points raised in the subsequent discussion. The second activity, not yet widely appreciated as being related, is the development of a content-focussed data dictionary within MPEG. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC29, The Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG), is formally a joint working group of ISO and the International Electrotechnical Commission. Originally best known for compression standards for audio, MPEG now includes the MPEG-21 "Multimedia Framework", which includes several components of digital rights management technology standardisation. Some of the components are already being used in digital library activities. One component is a Rights Data Dictionary that was established as a component to support activities such as the MPEG Rights Expression Language. In April 2005, the ISO/IEC Technical Management Board appointed a Registration Authority for the MPEG 21 Rights Data Dictionary (ISO/IEC Information technology - Multimedia framework (MPEG-21) - Part 6: Rights Data Dictionary, ISO/IEC 21000-6), and an implementation of the dictionary is about to be launched. However, the Dictionary design is based on a generic interoperability framework, and it will offer extensive additional possibilities. The design of the dictionary goes back to one of the major studies of the conceptual model of interoperability, <indecs>. Section 3 below provides a brief summary of the origins and possible applications of the ISO/IEC 21000-6 Dictionary.

2.522415E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313808 = sum of:
    0.0035313808 = weight(_text_:information in 1217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035313808 = score(doc=1217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 1217, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1217)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Die diesjährige öffentliche Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe Dezimalklassifikationen war in das Programm der Fortbildungsveranstaltung für Bibliothekare anläßlich der 25. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation eingebunden und fand am 14.03.2001 im München statt. Herr Schleifenbaum (UB Stuttgart) gab einen Anwenderbericht zur Universalen Dezimalklassifikation (UDK/UDC), die seit 1947 dort für den Systematischen Katalog verwendet wird. Bereits seit Juni 1989 werden in den Südwestdeutschen Bibliotheksverbund (SWB) UDC-Notationen eingegeben. Die Teilnahme an der Verbundkatalogisierung führte im Mai 1996 zum Abbruch des Systematischen Kataloges in Zettelform. Gleichzeitig begann die UB Stuttgart mit der kooperativen verbalen Sacherschließung nach den Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog (RSWK) im Südwestdeutschen Bibliotheksverbund. UDC-Notationen werden seitdem nur für Titel ausgewählter Fachgebiete vergeben, die im Lokalstammsatz abgelegt und mit Benennung (genormtes Schlagwort nach der Schlagwortnormdatei) versehen sind. Die Recherche nach Notationen ist im Lokalstammsatz des SWB möglich. In der UB Stuttgart werden folgende Ausgaben der UDK benutzt: Dezimalklassifikation. Internationale Mittlere Ausgabe. Bd.l. Systematische Tafeln. 1978 - Dezimalklassifikation. Internationale Mittlere Ausgabe. Bd 2. Alphabetisches Register. 1985 - Des weiteren gab Herr Schleifenbaum als Teilnehmer der D-ACH-Konferenz 2000 in Wien einen Bericht und verwies auch auf die umfassenden Ausführungen von Dr. Gudrun Fröschner in der Zeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" 52 (2001) 1 S. 49-52. Die D-A-CH-Konferenz versteht sich als Forum von UDCAnwendern der drei deutschsprachigen Länder Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz und weiterer Länder Osteuropas, von denen die Slowakei, Tschechische Republik und Rumänien vertreten waren, das sich an der Weiterentwicklung der UDC beteiligt und die Herausgabe von Übersetzungen der aktuellen maschinenlesbaren UDC-Version (Master Reference File) verfolgt. Der Fachnormenunterausschuß (FNUA) bei der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Information und Dokumentation (ÖGDI) ist besonders aktiv bei der Einreichung von Änderungs- und Verbesserungsvorschlägen an das UDC-Consortium (UDCC), das als Lizenzinhaber an der UDC für deren Weiterentwicklung und Pflege verantwortlich ist. Zum aktuellen Thema Konkordanzen wies Herr Dr. Lorenz (UB Regensburg) in seinen Ausführungen an Hand von Beispielen auf Probleme bei der Erstellung von Konkordanzen zwischen Klassifikationen hin. Schwierigkeiten ergeben sich aus der unterschiedlichen Gliederung, der unterschiedlichen Tiefengliederung, der Gestaltung von Doppelstellen, der Handhabung von Schlüsseln, der verbalen Benennung von Gliederungsebenen und der verbalen Suchmöglichkeiten über Registerbegriffe in den verschiedenen Klassifikationssystemen. Entscheidungen, welche Klassifikation als Ausgangsklassifikation dienen sollte und darüber, ob Konkordanzen intellektuell oder automatisch erstellt werden sollten, sind zu fällen. In der abschließenden Diskussion über künftige Aktivitäten der AG Dezimalklassifikationen wurde der Beschluß gefasst, erneut auf die Notwendigkeit einer Konkordanz zwischen den beiden internationalen Klassifikationssystem UDC und DDC (Dewey Decimal Classification) hinzuweisen und dies in einem Memorandum an das UDC-Consortium zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Im Projekt DDC Deutsch, das die Übersetzung und Einführung der DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie zum Ziel hat, sind auch Konkordanzen zu anderen in Deutschland verbreiteten Klassifikationen (Regensburger Verbundklassifikation, Niederländische Basisklassifikation u.a.) vorgesehen. Die UDC ist in diesem nationalen Programm nicht berücksichtigt, obwohl umfangreiche Datenbestände nach der UDC erschlossen sind und auch weiterhin danach erschlossen werden. In Anbetracht der zunehmenden Akzeptanz der DDC wäre es zweckmäßig, zwischen der UDC und der DDC eine Konkordanz zu erstellen. um vorhandene und in Zukunft gelieferte DCCNotationen für die Erzeugung von UDC-Notationen zu nutzen und umgekehrt nach Beständen, die mit UDC erschlossen sind, recherchieren zu können. Dieser Arbeit sollten sich die Lizenzinhaber UDCC (UDC) und OCLC (DDC) annehmen. Bei der Einführung der DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie ist geplant, Schlagwörter der Schlagwortnormdatei mit Notationen der DDC und weiteren Notationen anderer Klassifikationen (z.B. Regensburger Verbundklassifikation, Niederländische Basisklassifikation) zu verknüpfen. Hier bietet sich für die UDK-Anwender die Chance, Zuarbeit bei der Integration der UDC in die Schlagwortnormdatei zu leisten. Die Arbeitsgruppe Dezimalklassifikationen wird sich diesbezüglich an das Konsortium DDC Deutsch wenden

2.522415E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313808 = sum of:
    0.0035313808 = weight(_text_:information in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035313808 = score(doc=4270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.87-144

2.522415E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313808 = sum of:
    0.0035313808 = weight(_text_:information in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035313808 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 58(2007) H.1, S.6

2.522415E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313808 = sum of:
    0.0035313808 = weight(_text_:information in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035313808 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In March 2005, the Paris-based news service Agence France Presse (AFP) sued Google Inc. in an American court, charging that the search engine's news aggregator program had illegally infringed the wire service's copyright. The lawsuit, filed in the u.s. District Court for the District of Columbia, claimed that Google News had engaged in the infringement since its launch in September 2002 by »reproducing and publicly displaying AFP's photographs, headlines, and story leads« . The claim also said that Google News had ignored requests that it cease and desist the infringement, and it asked for more than $17 million (about 13.6 million Euros) in damages. Within a few days, Google News was removing links t0 Agence France Presse news articles and photographs.1 However, Agence France Presse said it would still pursue the lawsuit because 0f the licensing fees it was owed as a result of what it claimed was Google's past copyright infringement. The case, which was still pending in early 2007, as the sides struggled to reconstruct and evaluate specific past Google News pageso, was interesting for several reasons. First, it pitted the company that owns the world's most popular search engine against the world's oldest news service; Agence France Presse was founded in Paris in 1835 by Charles-Louis Havas, sometimes known as the father of global journalismo. Second, the copyright-infringement allegations made by AFP had not been made by most of the 4,500 or so other news organizations whose material is used in exactly the same way on Google News every day, though Google did lose somewhat similar cases in German and Belgian courts in 2004 and 2006, respectively. Third, AFP's assertions and Google's counter claims offer an intriguing argument about the nature of key components of traditional and new-media journalism, especially news headlines. Finally, the case warrants further examination because it is essentially an argument over the fundamental nature of Internet hyperlinking. Some commentators have noted that a ruling against Google could be disastrous for blogs, which also often quote news storieso, while other commentators have concluded that a victory for Agence France Presse would call into question the future of online news aggregatorso. This chapter uses the Agence France Presse lawsuit as a way to examine arguments about the legality of news aggregator links to copyrighted material. Using traditional legal research methods, it attempts to put the case into context by referring to key u.s. and European Internet hyperlinking lawsuits from the 1990s through 2006. The chapter also discusses the nature of specific traditional journalistic forms such as headlines and story leads and whether they can be copyrighted. Finally, the chapter argues that out-of-court settlements and conflicting court rulings have left considerable ambiguity around the intersection of copyright, free speech, and information-cataloging concerns, leaving Google News and other aggregators vulnerable to claims of copyright infringement.

2.522415E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313808 = sum of:
    0.0035313808 = weight(_text_:information in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035313808 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 58(2007) H.6/7, S.322

2.522415E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313808 = sum of:
    0.0035313808 = weight(_text_:information in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035313808 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Scholarly digital repositories continue to be one of the most dynamic and varying components of the emerging digital research library. Little consensus is evident on matters such as depositing content in disciplinary or institutional repositories, or both. Debates about deposit mandates and access to research have spilled into the political arena and have focused much attention on various aspects of digital repositories, including the economics and patterns of scholarly publishing, systems and technology, governmental and organizational policies, access, accountability, research impact, and the motivations of individual researchers. Scholarly digital repositories are a rich area for both empirical research and philosophical debate, and are the central theme of a growing body of published literature. It is surprising, therefore, that so much is still unknown about the basic nature of digital repositories, including both differences and similarities. As the two Repositories by the Numbers articles in this issue show, digital scholarly repositories are diversifying both in their general nature and in the information they contain. Because there is still much to be discovered or understood at the most basic levels of digital repositories, co-authors Chuck Thomas and Robert H. McDonald and author Cat McDowell offer readers two different but complementary statistical studies of various types of institutional and disciplinary repositories. Re-iterating a theme of many of the recent works presented at the 2nd International Conference on Institutional Repositories, Thomas and McDonald apply statistical techniques to explore patterns of scholarly participation by more than 30,000 authors in several categories of repositories. McDowell reports on her ongoing analysis of the growth and development of institutional repositories in American universities and colleges. Together, these articles reveal new aspects of the digital repository landscape, and present data that will be of immense interest to repository planners and sponsors.

2.522415E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313808 = sum of:
    0.0035313808 = weight(_text_:information in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035313808 = score(doc=1227,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

2.4965435E-4 = product of:
  0.0034951607 = sum of:
    0.0034951607 = weight(_text_:information in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034951607 = score(doc=3566,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0671879 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.2, S.181-182 (J. Scholl): "The book is based an a doctoral thesis titled "Global opportunity and national political economy: The development of internet ventures in Germany," which was supervised by Razeen Sally and accepted at the International Relations Department of the London School of Economics & Political Science, UK, in 2002. Its primary audience, although it is certainly of interest to policy makers, trade press journalists, and industry practitioners, is the academic community, and, in particular, (international) policy, business, business history, information technology, and information science scholars. The book's self-stated purpose is to explain "why Europe, despite initiating a tremendous amount of change ... failed to produce independent internet ventures of note" (p. 1) in contrast to the United States, where Internet start-ups such as Amazon.com, eBay, E*trade, and Yahoo managed to survive the notorious dot.com shakeout of 200I-2002. A few pages down, the objective is restated as "to explore the hypothesis of a global opportunity for technology innovation delivered via the internet and to explain Europe's entrepreneurial response" (p. 4). As a proxy case for Europe, the study provides a broad account of the changing legal and socioeconomic setting during the phase of early Internet adoption and development in Germany throughout the 1990s. The author highlights and details various facets of the entrepreneurial opportunity and compares the German case in some detail to corresponding developments in Sweden. Waesche concludes that starting an Internet business in Germany during that particular period of time was a "wrong country, wrong time" (p. I86) proposition.
Waesche sparsely Sketches out a theoretical framework for his study combining "network thinking," which he Claims to stand in the Schumpeterian research tradition, with classical institutional theory a la Max Weber. It is not clear, though, how this theory has guided his empirical research. No detailed hypotheses are presented, which would further clarify what was studied. Beyond the rudimentary framework, the author presents a concept of "refraction" denoting the "distorting effect national institutions have an a global innovation opportunity" (p. 17). Again, no hypotheses or measures for this concept are developed. No indication is given about which specific academic contribution was intended to be made and which particular gap of knowledge was attempted to be filled. Waesche's book would have greatly benefited from a more sharply posed and more detailed set of research questions. Instead we leam many details about the German situation in general and about the perceptions of individual players, particularly managerial personnel, in entrepreneurial Internet businesses in a specific Situation within a relatively short period of time. While many of those details are interesting in their own right, the reader is left wondering what the study's novelty is, what it specifically uncovered, what the frame of reference was, and what was finally learned. Contrary to its Claim and unlike a Chandlerian treatment of business history, the study does not explain, it rather just deseribes a particular historical situation. Consequently, the author refrains from presenting any new theory or prescriptive framework in his concluding remarks, but rather briefly revisits and summarizes the presening chapters. The study's empirical basis consists of two surveys with Sample sizes of 123 and 30 as well as a total of 68 interviews. The surveys and interviews were mostly completed between July of 1997 and November of 1999. Although descriptive statistics and detailed demographic information is provided in the appendix, the questionnaires and interview protocols are not included, making it difficult to follow the research undertaking. In summary, while undeniably a number of interesting and illustrative details regarding early Internet entrepreneurship in Germany are accounted for in Waesche's book, it would have provided a much stronger academic contribution had it developed a sound theory upfront and then empirically tested that theory. Alternatively the author could have singled out certain gaps in existing theory, and then attempted to fill those gaps by providing empirical evidence. In either case, he would have almost inevitably arrived at new insights directing to further study."

2.3898274E-4 = product of:
  0.0033457582 = sum of:
    0.0033457582 = product of:
      0.010037274 = sum of:
        0.010037274 = weight(_text_:22 in 1787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010037274 = score(doc=1787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1787)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 3.2008 18:18:53

2.16207E-4 = product of:
  0.0030268978 = sum of:
    0.0030268978 = weight(_text_:information in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030268978 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information

2.16207E-4 = product of:
  0.0030268978 = sum of:
    0.0030268978 = weight(_text_:information in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030268978 = score(doc=1222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.

2.16207E-4 = product of:
  0.0030268978 = sum of:
    0.0030268978 = weight(_text_:information in 3719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030268978 = score(doc=3719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3719)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.71, [=Suppl.34]

2.038419E-4 = product of:
  0.0028537866 = sum of:
    0.0028537866 = weight(_text_:information in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0028537866 = score(doc=666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.054858685 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Die Murmel liefert das Hauptthema des Buchs. Die Seele, das Ich, ist eine Illusion. Es ist eine »seltsame Schleife« (a strange loop), die ihrerseits von einer Unzahl von Schleifen auf einem niedrigeren Niveau erzeugt wird. So kommt es, dass der Klumpen Materie innerhalb unseres Schädels nicht nur sich selbst beobachtet, sondern sich dessen auch bewusst ist. Seltsame, genauer: selbstbezügliche Schleifen faszinieren Hofstadter seit jeher. Er sieht sie überall. Sie sind das Herzstück von Gödels berühmtem Unbeweisbarkeitssatz. Sie lauern in den »Principia Mathematica« von Russell und Whitehead, stets bereit, die Fundamente der Mathematik zu untergraben. Ihre kürzeste Form sind logische Paradoxa wie »Dieser Satz ist falsch« oder die Karte, auf deren einer Seite steht »Der Satz auf der Rückseite ist wahr« und auf der anderen »Der Satz auf der Rückseite ist falsch«. In Kapitel 21 führt er ein verstörendes Gedankenexperiment ein, das auch Thema zahlreicher Sciencefiction-Geschichten ist: Ein Mann wird, wie in »Raumschiff Enterprise«, auf einen fremden Planeten und zurück gebeamt, indem eine Maschine ihn Molekül für Molekül abscannt und die Information an den Zielort übermittelt, wo sie zur Herstellung einer exakten Kopie dieses Menschen dient. Wenn dabei das Original zerstört wird, entsteht kein philosophisches Problem. Wenn es aber erhalten bleibt - oder mit derselben Information zwei Kopien hergestellt werden -, entsteht ein Paar identischer Zwillinge mit identischen Erinnerungen. Ist der so gebeamte Mensch derselbe wie das Original oder ein anderer?