Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.05 
    0.051209882 = product of:
  0.07681482 = sum of:
    0.0059673307 = product of:
      0.029836653 = sum of:
        0.029836653 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029836653 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.07084749 = sum of:
      0.041010834 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041010834 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18082327 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044043828 = queryNorm
          0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
      0.029836653 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029836653 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044043828 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Das kennt der Sammler: Da fängt man an, sich für eine Sache zu interessieren und alles darüber zusammenzutragen, was man kriegen kann, und dann hat man sich verhoben, weil man die Sache ein wenig zu groß angegangen ist. So ist es zum Beispiel blöd, in der Wüste zu sitzen und sich zu überlegen, alle Kiefernnadeln weltweit zusammentragen zu wollen, weil das ja von dort aus gesehen nicht so viele sein können. Und dann beginnt man nach einiger Zeit diese Website über die Kiefernwälder weltweit zu finden und sich am Kopf zu kratzen. Also beschließt man nur noch "herausragende Kiefernnadeln" zu sammeln, was immer das sein mag. Aber auf jeden Fall hat man es satt, jeden Tag mehrere Tausend Säcke Bioabfall von schwitzenden Postboten vor die Tore gestellt zu bekommen. So ähnlich muss es der Library of Congress gehen, wenn sie im Dezember 2017 genau das beschließt. Also, nicht wirklich das Sammeln von Kiefernnadeln einzustellen. Vielmehr handelt es sich ja um die umfangreichste Bibliothek der Welt, die alle möglichen Inhalte in Büchern, auf Tonbändern und eben auch Tweets sammelt. Das ist ihr jetzt zu viel geworden. Kann man verstehen, kommen wir ja schon mit dem Lesen von Tweets eines kleinhändigen Präsidenten kaum noch nach, dann muss es da draußen ja auch noch eine ganze Menge anderes Zeugs geben. Die armen Bibliothekare in den dortigen Kellern weinen ja schon, wenn sie wieder tonnenweise kommentierte Retweets und diesen Mist auf den Tisch bekamen, alleine das Ausdrucken von bis zu 280 Zeichen und Bildern dauert ja ewig ... ganz zu schweigen vom Einsortieren.
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
  2. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.04 
    0.039382376 = product of:
  0.05907356 = sum of:
    0.01687816 = product of:
      0.0843908 = sum of:
        0.0843908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0843908 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0421954 = product of:
      0.0843908 = sum of:
        0.0843908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0843908 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  3. Dobratz, S.; Neuroth, H.: nestor: Network of Expertise in long-term STOrage of digital Resources : a digital preservation initiative for Germany (2004) 0.03 
    0.029906537 = product of:
  0.044859804 = sum of:
    0.032556552 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032556552 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20799294 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044043828 = queryNorm
        0.1565272 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.01230325 = product of:
      0.0246065 = sum of:
        0.0246065 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0246065 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18082327 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.13608038 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.
  4. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.02 
    0.022278037 = product of:
  0.033417054 = sum of:
    0.009547729 = product of:
      0.047738645 = sum of:
        0.047738645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047738645 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.023869323 = product of:
      0.047738645 = sum of:
        0.047738645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047738645 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
  5. Lohnt sich der DEAL? 0.02 
    0.021704368 = product of:
  0.065113105 = sum of:
    0.065113105 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065113105 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20799294 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044043828 = queryNorm
        0.3130544 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    " DASS DAS keine normalen Verhandlungen waren, konnte man bereits an der Pressemitteilung erkennen, die am Mittwochvormittag von der Pressestelle der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) verschickt wurde. Überschrift: "The DEAL Consortium and Elsevier Announce Transformative Open Access Agreement for Germany". Deutsche Übersetzung: Fehlanzeige. So wie auch der gesamte Meldungstext und die beigefügten Statements rein englischsprachig waren. Weil die HRK, Konsortialführer von DEAL, nichts mehr von Wissenschaftskommunikation auf Deutsch hält? Wohl kaum. Die tatsächliche Erklärung dürfte darin bestehen, dass nach sieben Jahren Verhandlungs-Drama, Teile davon auf offener Bühne, die Erleichterung über den abgeschlossenen Open-Access-Transformationsvertrag zwar groß war und die Stimmung unter den neuen Partnern gut. Aber nicht so gut, dass die HRK sich eine eigenständige Übersetzung der mit Elsevier sicherlich bis ins Detail verhandelten Pressemitteilung erlauben zu können glaubte. Eine Abstimmung aber hätte wiederum ein derart komplexes Räderwerk erneut in Bewegung gesetzt, das nicht zu dem Zeitdruck passte, raus zu wollen mit der Agreement-Nachricht. ... "
  6. Krüger, N.; Pianos, T.: Lernmaterialien für junge Forschende in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften als Open Educational Resources (OER) (2021) 0.02 
    0.01949328 = product of:
  0.029239919 = sum of:
    0.008354262 = product of:
      0.04177131 = sum of:
        0.04177131 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04177131 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.020885656 = product of:
      0.04177131 = sum of:
        0.04177131 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04177131 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
  7. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.02 
    0.016708525 = product of:
  0.025062786 = sum of:
    0.0071607963 = product of:
      0.03580398 = sum of:
        0.03580398 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580398 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.01790199 = product of:
      0.03580398 = sum of:
        0.03580398 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580398 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    1. 1.2020 13:22:34
  8. Gutknecht, C.: Zahlungen der ETH Zürich an Elsevier, Springer und Wiley nun öffentlich (2015) 0.01 
    0.013532884 = product of:
  0.040598653 = sum of:
    0.040598653 = product of:
      0.08119731 = sum of:
        0.08119731 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08119731 = score(doc=4324,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18082327 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.44904238 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Was bezahlt die ETH Bibliothek an Elsevier, Springer und Wiley? Die Antwort auf diese einfache Frage liegt nun nach gut 14 Monaten und einem Entscheid der ersten Rekursinstanz (EDÖB) vor. Werfen wir nun also einen Blick in diese nun erstmals öffentlich zugänglichen Daten (auch als XLSX). Die ETH-Bibliothek schlüsselte die Ausgaben wie von mir gewünscht in Datenbanken, E-Books und Zeitschriften auf.
  9. Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017) 0.01 
    0.011139018 = product of:
  0.016708527 = sum of:
    0.0047738645 = product of:
      0.023869323 = sum of:
        0.023869323 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023869323 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.011934661 = product of:
      0.023869323 = sum of:
        0.023869323 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023869323 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15423398 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044043828 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

Authors

Years

Languages