Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021206036 = product of:
  0.042412072 = sum of:
    0.042412072 = product of:
      0.084824145 = sum of:
        0.084824145 = weight(_text_:work in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084824145 = score(doc=5441,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.4214336 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the past few years there has been a significant amount of work in the area of cataloging internet resources, primarily using new metadata standards like the Dublin Core, but there has been little work on applying new data description formats like SGML and XML to traditional cataloging practices. What little work has been done in the area of using SGML and XML for traditional bibliographic description has primarily been based on the concept of converting MARC tagging into XML tagging. I suggest that, rather than attempting to convert existing MARC tagging into a new syntax based on SGML or XML, a more fruitful possibility is to return to the cataloging standards and describe their inherent structure, learning from how MARC has been used successfully in modern OPAC while attempting to avoid MARC's rigid field-based restrictions.

0.01857433 = product of:
  0.03714866 = sum of:
    0.03714866 = product of:
      0.07429732 = sum of:
        0.07429732 = weight(_text_:22 in 4950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07429732 = score(doc=4950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4950, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2003 11:06:22

0.016324414 = product of:
  0.032648828 = sum of:
    0.032648828 = product of:
      0.065297656 = sum of:
        0.065297656 = weight(_text_:work in 2118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065297656 = score(doc=2118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 2118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article presents an analysis of the effect of granularity and order in an XML encoded collection of full text journal articles. Two-hundred and eighteen sessions of searchers performing simulated work tasks in the collection have been analysed. The results show that searchers prefer to use smaller sections of the article as their source of information. In interaction sessions during which articles are assessed, however, they are to a large degree evaluated as more important than the articles' sections and subsections.

0.014859463 = product of:
  0.029718926 = sum of:
    0.029718926 = product of:
      0.059437852 = sum of:
        0.059437852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059437852 = score(doc=1457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1457, 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=1457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seit dem 22. Februar 1999 ist das Resource Description Framework (RDF) als W3C-Empfehlung verfügbar. Doch was steckt hinter diesem Standard, der das Zeitalter des Semantischen Webs einläuten soll? Was RDF bedeutet, wozu man es einsetzt, welche Vorteile es gegenüber XML hat und wie man RDF anwendet, soll in diesem Artikel erläutert werden.

0.01300203 = product of:
  0.02600406 = sum of:
    0.02600406 = product of:
      0.05200812 = sum of:
        0.05200812 = weight(_text_:22 in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05200812 = score(doc=1461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2003 10:50:22

0.01300203 = product of:
  0.02600406 = sum of:
    0.02600406 = product of:
      0.05200812 = sum of:
        0.05200812 = weight(_text_:22 in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05200812 = score(doc=2538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2538, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2004 10:39:22

0.011543104 = product of:
  0.023086209 = sum of:
    0.023086209 = product of:
      0.046172418 = sum of:
        0.046172418 = weight(_text_:work in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046172418 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20127523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.2293994 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using new communication technologies libraries must face continuously new questions, possibilities and expectations. This study discusses library-related aspects of our electronic era and how computer-related data formats affect bibliographic dataprocessing to give a summary of the most important results. First bibliographic formats for the exchange of bibliographic and related information in the machine-readable form between different types of computer systems were created more than 30 years ago. The evolution of information technologies leads to the improvement of computer systems. In addition to the development of computers and media types Internet has a great influence on data structure as well. Since the introduction of MARC bibliographic format, technology of data exchange between computers and between different computer systems has reached a very sophisticated stage and has contributed to the creation of new standards in this field. Today libraries work with this new infrastructure that induces many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is moving from a relatively homogenous bibliographic environment to a diverse one. Despite these challenges such changes are achievable and necessary to exploit possibilities of new metadata and technologies like the Internet and XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is an open standard, a universal language for data on the Web. XML is nearly six-years-old standard designed for the description and computer-based management of (semi)-structured data and structured texts. XML gives developers the power to deliver structured data from a wide variety of applications and it is also an ideal format from server-to-server transfer of structured data. XML also isn't limited for Internet use and is an especially valuable tool in the field of library. In fact, XML's main strength - organizing information - makes it perfect for exchanging data between different systems. Tools that work with the XML can be used to process XML records without incurring additional costs associated with one's own software development. In addition, XML is also a suitable format for library web services. The Department of Computer-related Graphic Design and Library and Information Sciences of Debrecen University launched the BDML (Bibliographic Description Markup Language) development project in order to standardize bibliogrphic description with the help of XML.

0.011144597 = product of:
  0.022289194 = sum of:
    0.022289194 = product of:
      0.04457839 = sum of:
        0.04457839 = weight(_text_:22 in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04457839 = score(doc=720,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19203177 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054837555 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 1.2006 19:01:22