-
Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004)
0.01
0.009764061 = product of:
0.058584366 = sum of:
0.032292992 = weight(_text_:web in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032292992 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = queryNorm
0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
0.026291374 = product of:
0.05258275 = sum of:
0.05258275 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05258275 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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(2/12)
- Abstract
- The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
- Date
- 9.12.2005 19:22:38
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
-
Cranefield, S.: Networked knowledge representation and exchange using UML and RDF (2001)
0.01
0.009020278 = product of:
0.054121666 = sum of:
0.03996054 = weight(_text_:web in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03996054 = score(doc=5896,freq=4.0), product of:
0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = queryNorm
0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
0.014161124 = weight(_text_:information in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014161124 = score(doc=5896,freq=6.0), product of:
0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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(2/12)
- 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
-
Guenther, R.S.: Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description : guidelines and applications (2004)
0.01
0.0074205548 = product of:
0.04452333 = sum of:
0.02825637 = weight(_text_:web in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02825637 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = queryNorm
0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
0.016266957 = product of:
0.032533914 = sum of:
0.032533914 = weight(_text_:22 in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032533914 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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(2/12)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), its accompanying documentation and some of its applications. It reviews the MODS user guidelines provided by the Library of Congress and how they enable a user of the schema to consistently apply MODS as a metadata scheme. Because the schema itself could not fully document appropriate usage, the guidelines provide element definitions, history, relationships with other elements, usage conventions, and examples. Short descriptions of some MODS applications are given and a more detailed discussion of its use in the Library of Congress's Minerva project for Web archiving is given.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.89-98
-
Becker, H.-J.; Hengel, C.; Neuroth, H.; Weiß, B.; Wessel, C.: ¬Die Virtuelle Fachbibliothek als Schnittstelle für eine fachübergreifende Suche in den einzelnen Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken : Definition eines Metadaten-Kernsets (VLib Application Profile) (2002)
0.01
0.006827626 = product of:
0.08193151 = sum of:
0.08193151 = weight(_text_:suche in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08193151 = score(doc=2856,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17138755 = queryWeight, product of:
4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = queryNorm
0.4780482 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Abstract
- Der folgende Beitrag beschäftigt sich nicht mit einer konkreten Virtuellen Fachbibliothek, sondern mit dem übergreifenden Themenkomplex "Metadaten" und der Fragestellung, wie Metadaten für eine fachübergreifende Suche über alle Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken eingesetzt werden können. Im Rahmen des Aufbaus der Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken hat die Projektkoordinierung Unterarbeitsgruppen zur Lösung spezifischer Fragestellungen ins Leben gerufen. Der Arbeitsbereich "Metadaten" ist von dem von der DFG geförderten Projekt META-LIB (Metadaten-Initiative deutscher Bibliotheken) mit den Teilprojekten an Der Deutschen Bibliothek und der SUB Göttingen übernommen worden. META-LIB erhielt die Aufgabe, "Empfehlungen zur Definition eines Metadaten-Core-Sets für die verteilte Suche über die Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken" zu entwickeln. Im folgenden werden die Empfehlungen vorgestellt. Sie basieren auf den Ergebnissen und der Auswertung von Antworteng eines Internet-Fragebogens, in dem die Datenelemente erfragt wurden, die in den einzelnen Virtuellen Fachbibliotheken zur Erschließung verwendet bzw. benötigt werden. Für die Formulierung der Empfehlungen und zur Abstimmung sind zwei MetadatenWorkshops (am 16. Mai 2001 in der SUB Göttingen und am 9./10. August 2001 in der Deutschen Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main) durchgeführt worden, deren Ergebnisse und Diskussionen als Grundlage dienen.
-
Eden, B.L.: Metadata and librarianship : will MARC survive? (2004)
0.01
0.005071347 = product of:
0.030428082 = sum of:
0.014161124 = weight(_text_:information in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014161124 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.016266957 = product of:
0.032533914 = sum of:
0.032533914 = weight(_text_:22 in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032533914 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- 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
-
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)
0.00
0.0046382444 = product of:
0.027829465 = sum of:
0.0115625085 = weight(_text_:information in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0115625085 = score(doc=2848,freq=4.0), product of:
0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.016266957 = product of:
0.032533914 = sum of:
0.032533914 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032533914 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- 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
-
Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004)
0.00
0.0034918408 = product of:
0.020951044 = sum of:
0.0070079383 = weight(_text_:information in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0070079383 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.013943106 = product of:
0.027886212 = sum of:
0.027886212 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027886212 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- 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
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004)
0.00
0.0030984683 = product of:
0.03718162 = sum of:
0.03718162 = product of:
0.07436324 = sum of:
0.07436324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07436324 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications (2004)
0.00
0.0027111596 = product of:
0.032533914 = sum of:
0.032533914 = product of:
0.06506783 = sum of:
0.06506783 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06506783 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1
-
MARC and metadata : METS, MODS, and MARCXML: current and future implications part 2 (2004)
0.00
0.0027111596 = product of:
0.032533914 = sum of:
0.032533914 = product of:
0.06506783 = sum of:
0.06506783 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06506783 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2
-
Martin, P.: Conventions and notations for knowledge representation and retrieval (2000)
0.00
0.002018312 = product of:
0.024219744 = sum of:
0.024219744 = weight(_text_:web in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024219744 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Abstract
- Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations -- Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) - derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB¹ [7]
-
Proffitt, M.: Pulling it all together : use of METS in RLG cultural materials service (2004)
0.00
0.0015492341 = product of:
0.01859081 = sum of:
0.01859081 = product of:
0.03718162 = sum of:
0.03718162 = weight(_text_:22 in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03718162 = score(doc=767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.65-68
-
McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004)
0.00
0.0015492341 = product of:
0.01859081 = sum of:
0.01859081 = product of:
0.03718162 = sum of:
0.03718162 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03718162 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
-
Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004)
0.00
0.0015492341 = product of:
0.01859081 = sum of:
0.01859081 = product of:
0.03718162 = sum of:
0.03718162 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03718162 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
-
El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001)
0.00
0.0015492341 = product of:
0.01859081 = sum of:
0.01859081 = product of:
0.03718162 = sum of:
0.03718162 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03718162 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 23. 1.2007 11:22:30
-
Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004)
0.00
0.0011619255 = product of:
0.013943106 = sum of:
0.013943106 = product of:
0.027886212 = sum of:
0.027886212 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027886212 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
-
Yee, R.; Beaubien, R.: ¬A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging (2004)
0.00
0.0011619255 = product of:
0.013943106 = sum of:
0.013943106 = product of:
0.027886212 = sum of:
0.027886212 = weight(_text_:22 in 4752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027886212 = score(doc=4752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.69-81
-
Wisser, K.M.; O'Brien Roper, J.: Maximizing metadata : exploring the EAD-MARC relationship (2003)
0.00
9.6827134E-4 = product of:
0.011619256 = sum of:
0.011619256 = product of:
0.023238512 = sum of:
0.023238512 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023238512 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Guenther, R.; McCallum, S.: New metadata standards for digital resources : MODS and METS (2003)
0.00
6.8132736E-4 = product of:
0.008175928 = sum of:
0.008175928 = weight(_text_:information in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008175928 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03430388 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Source
- Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.11-15
