Search (17884 results, page 895 of 895)

0.001470675 = product of:
  0.0044120247 = sum of:
    0.0044120247 = weight(_text_:information in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044120247 = score(doc=3370,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Another challenge appears when, e.g., mapping Dewey class 890 Literatures of other specific languages and language families, which does not make sense in UDC in which all languages and literatures have equal status. Standard UDC schedules do not have a selection of preferred literatures and other literatures. In principle, UDC does not allow classes entitled 'others' which do not have defined semantic content. If entities are subdivided and there is no provision for an item outside the listed subclasses then this item is subsumed to a top class or a broader class where all unspecifiied or general members of that class may be expected. If specification is needed this can be divised by adding an alphabetical extension to the broader class. Here we have to find and list in the UDC Summary all literatures that are 'unpreferred' i.e. lumped in the 890 classes and map them again as many-to-one specific-to-broader match. The example below illustrates another interesting case. Classes Dewey 061 and UDC 06 cover roughy the same semantic field but in the subdivision the Dewey Summaries lists a combination of subject and place and as an enumerative classification, provides ready made numbers for combinations of place that are most common in an average (American?) library. This is a frequent approach in the schemes created with the physical book arrangement, i.e. library schelves, in mind. UDC, designed as an indexing language for information retrieval, keeps subject and place in separate tables and allows for any concept of place such as, e.g. (7) North America to be used in combination with any subject as these may coincide in documents. Thus combinations such as Newspapers in North America, or Organizations in North America would not be offered as ready made combinations. There is no selection of 'preferred' or 'most needed countries' or languages or cultures in the standard UDC edition: <Tabelle>

0.001470675 = product of:
  0.0044120247 = sum of:
    0.0044120247 = weight(_text_:information in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044120247 = score(doc=4300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.

0.00117654 = product of:
  0.00352962 = sum of:
    0.00352962 = weight(_text_:information in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00352962 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.03879095 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

The book does achieve its aim of being a starting point for someone interested in the state of some areas of AI research at the beginning of the new millennium. The book's most irritating feature is the different writing styles of the authors. The book is organized as a collection of papers similar to a typical graduate survey course packet, and as a result the book does not possess a narrative flow. Also the book contains a number of other major weaknesses such as a lack of an introductory or concluding chapter. The book could greatly benefit from an introductory chapter that would introduce readers to the areas of AI, explain why such a book is needed, and explain why each author's research is important. The manner in which the book currently handles these issues is a preface that talks about some of the above issues in a superficial manner. Also such an introductory chapter could be used to expound an what level of AI mathematical and statistical knowledge is expected from readers in order to gain maximum benefit from this book. A concluding chapter would be useful to readers interested in the other areas of AI not covered by the book, as well as open issues common to all of the research presented. In addition, most of the contributors come exclusively from the computer science field, which heavily slants the work toward the computer science community. A great deal of the research presented is being used by a number of research communities outside of computer science, such as biotechnology and information technology. A wider audience for this book could have been achieved by including a more diverse range of authors showing the interdisciplinary nature of many of these fields. Also the book's editors state, "The reader is expected to have basic knowledge of AI at the level of an introductory course to the field" (p vii), which is not the case for this book. Readers need at least a strong familiarity with many of the core concepts within AI, because a number of the chapters are shallow and terse in their historical overviews. Overall, this book would be a useful tool for a professor putting together a survey course an AI research. Most importantly the book would be useful for eager graduate students in need of a starting point for their research for their thesis. This book is best suited as a reference guide to be used by individuals with a strong familiarity with AI."

0.00117654 = product of:
  0.00352962 = sum of:
    0.00352962 = weight(_text_:information in 2789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00352962 = score(doc=2789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0518325 = queryNorm
        0.03879095 = fieldWeight in 2789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2789)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"... unter diesem Motto hat die Deutsche Bücherei Leipzig am 23. März 2004 auf dem Leipziger Kongress für Bibliothek und Information eine Vortragsreihe initiiert. Vorgestellt wurden Projekte, die sich im Spannungsfeld von Standardisierung und Heterogenität der Sacherschließung bewegen. Die Benutzer unserer Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen stehen heute einer Fülle von Informationen gegenüber, die sie aus zahlreichen Katalogen und Fachdatenbanken abfragen können. Diese Recherche kann schnell zeitraubend werden, wenn der Benutzer mit verschiedenen Suchbegriffen und -logiken arbeiten muss, um zur gewünschten Ressource zu gelangen. Ein Schlagwort A kann in jedem der durchsuchten Systeme eine andere Bedeutung annehmen. Homogenität erreicht man klassisch zunächst durch Normierung und Standardisierung. Für die zwei traditionellen Verfahren der inhaltlichen Erschließung - der klassifikatorischen und der verbalen - haben sich in Deutschland verschiedene Standards durchgesetzt. Klassifikatorische Erschließung wird mit ganz unterschiedlichen Systemen betrieben. Verbreitet sind etwa die Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK) oder die Basisklassifikation (BK). Von Spezial- und Facheinrichtungen werden entsprechende Fachklassifikationen eingesetzt. Weltweit am häufigsten angewandt ist die Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), die seit 2003 ins Deutsche übertragen wird. Im Bereich der verbalen Sacherschließung haben sich, vor allem bei den wissenschaftlichen Universalbibliotheken, die Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog (RSWK) durchgesetzt, durch die zugleich die Schlagwortnormdatei (SWD) kooperativ aufgebaut wurde. Daneben erschließen wiederum viele Spezial- und Facheinrichtungen mit selbst entwickelten Fachthesauri.