Search (99 results, page 2 of 5)

0.0028568096 = product of:
  0.028568096 = sum of:
    0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028568096 = score(doc=4842,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The Jack Brause Library at New York University (NYU) is a special library supporting the curriculum of NYU's Real Estate Institute. The Jack Brause Library (JBL) Real estate Periodical Index was established in 1990 and draws on the library's collection of over 140 real estate periodicals. Describes the conversion of the JBL Index from a 3x5 card index to an online resource. The database was originally created using Rbase for DOS but this quickly became obsolete and in 1993 was replaced with InMagic. In 1997 the JBL Index was made available on NYU's telnet catalogue, BobCat, and the Internet database catalogue, BobCatPlus. The transition of InMagic data to USMARC formatted records involved a 3-step process: data normalization; adding value; and data recording. The Index has been operational through telnet since May 1997 and installing it onto the Web became functional in Oct 1997

0.0026934259 = product of:
  0.026934259 = sum of:
    0.026934259 = weight(_text_:web in 2894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026934259 = score(doc=2894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2894, 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=2894)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

0.0023806747 = product of:
  0.023806747 = sum of:
    0.023806747 = weight(_text_:web in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023806747 = score(doc=5172,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 8470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=8470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 8470, 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=8470)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Explains the technology used by the Oregon State Archives to relaize the goal of data interchangeability given the prescribed nature of the MARC format. Describes an emergent model of learning and information delivery focusing on the example of World Wide Web, accessed most often by the software client Mosaic, which is the fastest growing segment of the Internet information highway. Also describes The Data Magician, a flexible program which allows for many combinations of input and output formats, and will read unconventional formats such as MARC communications format. Oregon State Archives, using Mosaic and The Data Magician, are consequently able to present valuable electronic information to a variety of users

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 6616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=6616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 6616, 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=6616)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Thema dieses Beitrages sind Dokumentenstrukturen und zwar aus zwei Blickrichtungen: aus der Sicht der Autoren, die ein Dokument mit Computerunterstützung erstellen und die Dokumentenstruktur manipulieren und aus der Sicht der Lesenden, die ein Dokument lesen und die Struktur des Dokumentes wahrnehmen. Bei der Dokumentenstruktur wird unterschieden zwischen der logischen Struktur und der grafischen Struktur eines Dokumentes. Diese Trennung ermöglicht das Manipulieren und Visualisieren der logischen Struktur. Welche Bedeutung das für die Autoren und für die Benutzenden des Dokumentes hat, soll in dem Beitrag u.a. am Beispiel der Auszeichnungssprache HTML, der Dokumentenbeschreibungssprache des World-Wide Web, erörtert werden

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 5163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=5163,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5163, 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=5163)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

This article presents an empirical study focused on a qualitative analysis of the UNIMARC format. An analysis of the structural quality of the data provided by the format is evaluated to determine its current suitability for meeting the requirements and trends in data architecture for the information network and the Semantic Web. Driven by a set of quality characteristics that identify weaknesses in the data schema that cannot be bridged by simply converting data to MARC XML or RDF/XML, we conclude that the UNIMARC format is not compliant with the current metadata schema desiderata and must be replaced.

0.002192856 = product of:
  0.02192856 = sum of:
    0.02192856 = product of:
      0.065785676 = sum of:
        0.065785676 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065785676 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.002086211 = product of:
  0.02086211 = sum of:
    0.02086211 = product of:
      0.06258633 = sum of:
        0.06258633 = weight(_text_:29 in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06258633 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 2914, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2914)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Bibliotheksdienst. 29(1995) H.2, S. 322-327

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=92,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 92, 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=92)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Over the last decade, the gap between North and South in relation to formats has increasingly limited development of international programmes such as UBC and UAP. At present the need to review formats in the light of network developments such as the Internet is urgent. Presentations covered the Web, limitations of traditional formats eg. MARC, Internet formats eg. Z39.50 and SGML, and multimedia formats, with examples of prototypes for converting traditional systems to international standards. The Internet has defined a new field of action for librarians. It is essential that developing countries share the experience of industrialised countries, with support from governments and collaboration from international organisations, in ensuring harmonious progress to universal compatibility

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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]

0.0019045398 = product of:
  0.019045398 = sum of:
    0.019045398 = weight(_text_:web in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019045398 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.

0.0018254347 = product of:
  0.018254347 = sum of:
    0.018254347 = product of:
      0.054763038 = sum of:
        0.054763038 = weight(_text_:29 in 5539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054763038 = score(doc=5539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 5539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5539)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Towards a common bibliographic exchange format? International Symposium on Bibliographic Exchange Formats, Taormina, Sicily, 27-29 April 1978

0.0018254347 = product of:
  0.018254347 = sum of:
    0.018254347 = product of:
      0.054763038 = sum of:
        0.054763038 = weight(_text_:29 in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054763038 = score(doc=2306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Bibliotheksdienst. 29(1995) H.9, S.1428-1446

0.0018090137 = product of:
  0.018090136 = sum of:
    0.018090136 = product of:
      0.05427041 = sum of:
        0.05427041 = weight(_text_:22 in 4973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05427041 = score(doc=4973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4973, 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=4973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

26. 8.2000 19:22:35

0.0018090137 = product of:
  0.018090136 = sum of:
    0.018090136 = product of:
      0.05427041 = sum of:
        0.05427041 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05427041 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6838, 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=6838)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22

0.0016833913 = product of:
  0.016833913 = sum of:
    0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 6617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016833913 = score(doc=6617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 6617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6617)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Semantische Thesauri sind dazu geeignet, Wissen zu strukturieren. Der vorliegende Beitrag soll unter anderem deutlich machen, daß die SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) ein mögliches Instrument zum Aufbau semantischer Thesauri ist. Die SGML ist eine Metasprache, die geeignet ist, Texte in natürlicher Sprache mit Strukturen zu versehen, die das Erkennen des Informationsgehaltes eines Dokuments erleichtern. Zugleich wird damit unter anderem die Voraussetzung dafür geschaffen, Volltextindexierungen in einer Weise vorzunehmen, wie dies bislang nicht möglich war. Die rasant zunehmende Bedeutung der SGML, liegt zweifellos an der bekanntesten Document Type Definition (DTD) im Rahmen der SGML, der Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), wie wir sie im WWW (World Wide Web) des Internet in Anwendung finden. Darüber hinaus erfüllt SGML je nach DTD die Bedingungen, die Objektorientiertheit unserer natürlichen Sprache mit ihren definierbaren Begriffen sinnvoll zu unterstützen und beispielsweise mit Hilfe der objektorientierten Programmiersprache JAVA zu verarbeiten. Besonders hervorzuheben ist die sich damit verändernde Publikationsform bei wissensbasierten Texten, in denen SGML-Dokumente nicht mehr nur für sich zu betrachten sind, wie Zeitschriftenaufsätze oder Bücher, sondern die darüber hinaus in Form von Wissenselementen in einer Daten- und Wissensbank organisiert und recherchiert werden können

0.0016833913 = product of:
  0.016833913 = sum of:
    0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016833913 = score(doc=1166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).

0.0015646582 = product of:
  0.015646582 = sum of:
    0.015646582 = product of:
      0.046939746 = sum of:
        0.046939746 = weight(_text_:29 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046939746 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

29. 9.2002 18:43:44

0.0014619039 = product of:
  0.014619039 = sum of:
    0.014619039 = product of:
      0.043857116 = sum of:
        0.043857116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043857116 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

0.001303882 = product of:
  0.01303882 = sum of:
    0.01303882 = product of:
      0.039116457 = sum of:
        0.039116457 = weight(_text_:29 in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039116457 = score(doc=4690,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Library review. 45(1996) no.2, S.25-29