Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Datenformate"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004) 0.01 
    0.013004894 = product of:
  0.039014682 = sum of:
    0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018157298 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
    0.020857384 = product of:
      0.04171477 = sum of:
        0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171477 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4750, 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=4750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Metadata schema and standards are now a part of the information landscape. Librarianship has slowly realized that MARC is only one of a proliferation of metadata standards, and that MARC has many pros and cons related to its age, original conception, and biases. Should librarianship continue to promote the MARC standard? Are there better metadata standards out there that are more robust, user-friendly, and dynamic in the organization and presentation of information? This special issue examines current initiatives that are actively incorporating MARC standards and concepts into new metadata schemata, while also predicting a future where MARC may not be the metadata schema of choice for the organization and description of information.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.6-7
  2. Carvalho, J.R. de; Cordeiro, M.I.; Lopes, A.; Vieira, M.: Meta-information about MARC : an XML framework for validation, explanation and help systems (2004) 0.01 
    0.011894252 = product of:
  0.035682756 = sum of:
    0.014825371 = weight(_text_:information in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014825371 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
    0.020857384 = product of:
      0.04171477 = sum of:
        0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171477 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This article proposes a schema for meta-information about MARC that can express at a fairly comprehensive level the syntactic and semantic aspects of MARC formats in XML, including not only rules but also all texts and examples that are conveyed by MARC documentation. It can be thought of as an XML version of the MARC or UNIMARC manuals, for both machine and human usage. The article explains how such a schema can be the central piece of a more complete framework, to be used in conjunction with "slim" record formats, providing a rich environment for the automated processing of bibliographic data.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137
  3. Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004) 0.01 
    0.00895443 = product of:
  0.026863288 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
    0.017877758 = product of:
      0.035755515 = sum of:
        0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755515 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, 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=4748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
  4. Jimenez, V.O.R.: Nuevas perspectivas para la catalogacion : metadatos ver MARC (1999) 0.01 
    0.008427657 = product of:
  0.05056594 = sum of:
    0.05056594 = product of:
      0.10113188 = sum of:
        0.10113188 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10113188 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    30. 3.2002 19:45:22
    Source
    Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219
  5. Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996) 0.01 
    0.0056184377 = product of:
  0.033710625 = sum of:
    0.033710625 = product of:
      0.06742125 = sum of:
        0.06742125 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06742125 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    13. 1.2007 18:31:22
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58
  6. Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004) 0.01 
    0.0056184377 = product of:
  0.033710625 = sum of:
    0.033710625 = product of:
      0.06742125 = sum of:
        0.06742125 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06742125 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    9.12.2005 19:22:38
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
  7. Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004) 0.00 
    0.0039728354 = product of:
  0.023837011 = sum of:
    0.023837011 = product of:
      0.047674023 = sum of:
        0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047674023 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 767, 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=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
  8. McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004) 0.00 
    0.0039728354 = product of:
  0.023837011 = sum of:
    0.023837011 = product of:
      0.047674023 = sum of:
        0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047674023 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, 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=81)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
  9. Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004) 0.00 
    0.0039728354 = product of:
  0.023837011 = sum of:
    0.023837011 = product of:
      0.047674023 = sum of:
        0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047674023 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, 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=2834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
  10. El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001) 0.00 
    0.0039728354 = product of:
  0.023837011 = sum of:
    0.023837011 = product of:
      0.047674023 = sum of:
        0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047674023 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    23. 1.2007 11:22:30
  11. Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004) 0.00 
    0.003476231 = product of:
  0.020857384 = sum of:
    0.020857384 = product of:
      0.04171477 = sum of:
        0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171477 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2837, 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=2837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
  12. Lupovici, C.: ¬L'¬information secondaire du document primaire : format MARC ou SGML? (1997) 0.00 
    0.0030262163 = product of:
  0.018157298 = sum of:
    0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018157298 = score(doc=892,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Secondary information on primary documents: MARC or SGML format?
  13. Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF (2001) 0.00 
    0.0030262163 = product of:
  0.018157298 = sum of:
    0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018157298 = score(doc=5896,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
  14. Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004) 0.00 
    0.0029796264 = product of:
  0.017877758 = sum of:
    0.017877758 = product of:
      0.035755515 = sum of:
        0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755515 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, 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=4747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
  15. Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004) 0.00 
    0.0029796264 = product of:
  0.017877758 = sum of:
    0.017877758 = product of:
      0.035755515 = sum of:
        0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755515 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4752, 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=4752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81
  16. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.00 
    0.002495981 = product of:
  0.014975886 = sum of:
    0.014975886 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014975886 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Series
    Advances in information science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662
  17. Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003) 0.00 
    0.0024830222 = product of:
  0.0148981325 = sum of:
    0.0148981325 = product of:
      0.029796265 = sum of:
        0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029796265 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, 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=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Zapounidou, S.; Sfakakis, M.; Papatheodorou, C.: Library data integration : towards BIBFRAME mapping to EDM (2014) 0.00 
    0.0021179102 = product of:
  0.012707461 = sum of:
    0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012707461 = score(doc=1589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Integration of library data into the Linked Data environment is a key issue in libraries and is approached on the basis of interoperability between library data conceptual models. Achieving interoperability for different representations of the same or related entities between the library and cultural heritage domains shall enhance rich bibliographic data reusability and support the development of new data-driven information services. This paper aims to contribute to the desired interoperability by attempting to map core semantic paths between the BIBFRAME and EDM conceptual models. BIBFRAME is developed by the Library of Congress to support transformation of legacy library data in MARC format into linked data. EDM is the model developed for and used in the Europeana Cultural Heritage aggregation portal.
    Series
    Communications in computer and information science; 478
  19. Markup and metadata (1998) 0.00 
    0.001996785 = product of:
  0.011980709 = sum of:
    0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011980709 = score(doc=1835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1835)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Discusses the range of applications of the XML meta language, which allows users to design their own markup language and share it with others. Instead of being confined to HTML, where 'one size fits all', industries, academic disciplines and professional organizations can use XML syntax to create a common set of tags which standardize the presentation of information. The linking abilities of XML are more powerful than HTML, so that it will support bidirectional and multiway links, as well as those to a span of text rather than to a single point
  20. Guenther, R.; McCallum, S.: New metadata standards for digital resources : MODS and METS (2003) 0.00 
    0.0017471868 = product of:
  0.010483121 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.11-15

Authors

Years

Languages

Themes