Search (48 results, page 1 of 3)

0.06590111 = product of:
  0.13180222 = sum of:
    0.13180222 = product of:
      0.26360443 = sum of:
        0.26360443 = weight(_text_:journals in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26360443 = score(doc=4781,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            1.0274196 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Within the library world, there is a growing interest in the use of XML in journals, not least because of its implications for e-journal archiving. But what is actually happening in the commercial journals market? How far have XML and its related standards permeated the production of real commercial journals and how do publishers and other providers of journals see this area developing? This paper looks at the activities and future plans of a selection of publishers and aggregators in the STM journals market, although many of the comments relate to the entire journals arena.

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1871, 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=1871)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19.10.2003 17:17:22

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45

0.05648667 = product of:
  0.11297334 = sum of:
    0.11297334 = product of:
      0.22594668 = sum of:
        0.22594668 = weight(_text_:journals in 1873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22594668 = score(doc=1873,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.8806454 = fieldWeight in 1873, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Little data are available that can help librarians solve issues surrounding print versus online journals management, including ascertaining when print journals are no longer needed. This study examines the short-term effects of online availability an the use of print chemistry journals. The Duke University Chemistry Library gained access to Elsevier titles via ScienceDirect in February 2000. By comparing reshelving data for the print journals from 1999, 2000, and 2001, this study identif!es the shortterm changes in journals use that can be attributed to the introduction of ScienceDirect. In the first two years after ScienceDirect was introduced, use of print journals nearly halved. The diminished use of the print collection has important implications for collection management in sci-tech libraries.

0.05648667 = product of:
  0.11297334 = sum of:
    0.11297334 = product of:
      0.22594668 = sum of:
        0.22594668 = weight(_text_:journals in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22594668 = score(doc=593,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.8806454 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article examines the evolution of a collection of open access journals (OAJs,) indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson Scientific Philadelphia, PA) against four validity criteria including a free, immediate, full and constant access policy for at least 5 years. Few journals are found to be wrongly identified as OAJ or to have a dubious access policy. Some delayed journals evolved into gold OA; however, these are scarce compared to the number of journals that withdrew from gold OA to be an embargoed or a partially OAJ. A majority of the journals meet three of the criteria as they provide free and immediate access to their entire contents. Although a lot are found to follow a constant policy, a large number has an OA lifetime shorter than 5 years, due to the high frequency of newly launched or newly converted journals. That is the major factor affecting the validity of the collection. Only half of the collection meets all the requirements.

0.042699903 = product of:
  0.08539981 = sum of:
    0.08539981 = product of:
      0.17079961 = sum of:
        0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17079961 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.042699903 = product of:
  0.08539981 = sum of:
    0.08539981 = product of:
      0.17079961 = sum of:
        0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17079961 = score(doc=1030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.042699903 = product of:
  0.08539981 = sum of:
    0.08539981 = product of:
      0.17079961 = sum of:
        0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17079961 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.042699903 = product of:
  0.08539981 = sum of:
    0.08539981 = product of:
      0.17079961 = sum of:
        0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 1872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17079961 = score(doc=1872,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 1872, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A "new model" academic chemistry library is proposed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in which primary access to journals is electronic, replacing traditional print access, binding, and shelving. Print journals will continue to be purchased and archived unbound in a remote storage facility following unbound display and access for twelve months. The new model, initially proposed by administrative chemistry faculty, was assessed in a feasibility study which looked at the stability, quantity, and quality of electronic journals; it also included a survey of chemistry faculty, a review of internal management data, and an analysis of use of chemistry journals, both print and electronic. The feasibility study found support for the model in every area, but with a few caution flags and speed bumps predicted along the way.

0.042699903 = product of:
  0.08539981 = sum of:
    0.08539981 = product of:
      0.17079961 = sum of:
        0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17079961 = score(doc=3558,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 3558, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Surveys of the members of the American Astronomical Society identify how astronomers use journals and what features and formats they prefer. While every work field is distinct, the patterns of use by astronomers may provide a glimpse of what to expect of journal patterns and use by other scientists. Astronomers, like other scientists, continue to invest a large amount of their time in reading articles and place a high level of importance an journal articles. They use a wide variety of formats and means to get access to materials that are essential to their work in teaching, service, and research. They select access means that are convenient-whether those means be print, electronic, or both. The availability of a mature electronic journals system from their primary professional society has surely influenced their early adoption of e-journals.

0.03765778 = product of:
  0.07531556 = sum of:
    0.07531556 = product of:
      0.15063111 = sum of:
        0.15063111 = weight(_text_:journals in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15063111 = score(doc=4997,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5870969 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to study current policies and practices of scholarly journals on evaluating manuscripts for publication that had been previously published electronically. Various electronic forms were considered: a manuscript having been e-mailed to members of a listserv, attached to a personal or institutional home page, stored in an electronic preprint collection, or published in an electronic proceedings or electronic journal. Factors that might affect the consideration of such manuscripts were also examined, including characteristics of the journal, the previously published work, and the submitted manuscript. A sample of 202 scholarly journals in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities was selected for study. A questionnaire and cover letters were sent to the journal editors in the summer and fall of 1997, with an overall return rate of 57.4%. Results are reported for all journals, with comparisons being made between journals edited in the Unites States and outside the Unites States, by journal impact factor, and by discipline. The findings suggest that editorial policies regarding prior electronic publication are in an early stage of development. Most journal editors do not have a formal policy regarding the evaluation of work previously published in electronic form, nor are they currently evaluating such a policy. Editors disagreed widely on the importance of the various factors that might affect their decision to consider a work previously published electronically. The form or type of prior electronic publication was an important variable. Although some editors currently have a fairly rigid and negative posture towards work previously published electronically, most are willing to consider certain forms of such work for publication in their journals. Probably the most significant results of the study were the many differences in practices among scholarly disciplines. The findings of this study reveal how the Internet and the World Wide Web are currently affecting manuscript consideration policies of scholarly journals at this early stage of Web and Internet publishing

0.036979202 = product of:
  0.073958404 = sum of:
    0.073958404 = product of:
      0.14791681 = sum of:
        0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 1874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14791681 = score(doc=1874,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 1874, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reader awareness of article corrections can be of critical importance in the physical and biomedical sciences. Comparison of errata and corrigenda in online versions of high-impact physical sciences journals across titles and publishers yielded surprising variability. Of 43 online journals surveyed, 17 had no links between original articles and later corrections. When present, hyperlinks between articles and errata showed patterns in presentation style, but lacked consistency. Variability in the presentation, linking, and availability of online errata indicates that practices are not evenly developed across the field. Comparison of finding tools showed excellent coverage of errata by Science Citation Index, lack of indexing in INSPEC, and lack of retrieval with SciFinder Scholar. The development of standards for the linking of original articles to errata is recommended.

0.036979202 = product of:
  0.073958404 = sum of:
    0.073958404 = product of:
      0.14791681 = sum of:
        0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14791681 = score(doc=753,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to summarize the developments taking place in the scholarly communication system by reviewing the published literature on journal subscriptions, electronic publishing, electronic journals, Internet and changing information needs of researchers. It examines the role of different players in the scholarly communication process such as authors, commercial publishers, libraries, universities, and learned societies, their problems and efforts in meeting the new challenges brought in by the Internet. The study also explores the need for adopting electronic media for scholarly communication in place of printed journals considering the advantages such as accessibility, speed, cost and acceptance by the academic and research community. At the end it provides general guidance to authors, publishers and libraries to develop mechanisms for mutual benefit and foster the scholarly communication process in the new environment.

0.036979202 = product of:
  0.073958404 = sum of:
    0.073958404 = product of:
      0.14791681 = sum of:
        0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14791681 = score(doc=4210,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.

0.035225622 = product of:
  0.070451245 = sum of:
    0.070451245 = product of:
      0.14090249 = sum of:
        0.14090249 = weight(_text_:journals in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14090249 = score(doc=688,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.54917884 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Evaluates, through deep log analysis, the impact of "Big Deal" agreements on the online searching behaviour of users of the Emerald digital library Web site, which provides access to more than 150 journals in the fields of business and information science. The purpose of the evaluation was to map the online information seeking behaviour of the digital library user and to see whether those signed-up to a Big Deal arrangement behaved any differently from the others. In general they did. The real surprise proved to be the strong consumer traits of the library's users. Research reported here refers to the first stage of a three-stage research project.

0.035225622 = product of:
  0.070451245 = sum of:
    0.070451245 = product of:
      0.14090249 = sum of:
        0.14090249 = weight(_text_:journals in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14090249 = score(doc=1065,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.54917884 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.

0.030816004 = product of:
  0.061632007 = sum of:
    0.061632007 = product of:
      0.123264015 = sum of:
        0.123264015 = weight(_text_:journals in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.123264015 = score(doc=2960,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.48043144 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - By tracking the information-seeking and reading patterns of science, technology, medical and social science faculty members from 1977 to the present, this paper seeks to examine how faculty members locate, obtain, read, and use scholarly articles and how this has changed with the widespread availability of electronic journals and journal alternatives. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using questionnaire surveys of university faculty and other researchers periodically since 1977. Many questions used the critical incident of the last article reading to allow analysis of the characteristics of readings in addition to characteristics of readers. Findings - The paper finds that the average number of readings per year per science faculty member continues to increase, while the average time spent per reading is decreasing. Electronic articles now account for the majority of readings, though most readings are still printed on paper for final reading. Scientists report reading a higher proportion of older articles from a wider range of journal titles and more articles from library e-collections. Articles are read for many purposes and readings are valuable to those purposes. Originality/value - The paper draws on data collected in a consistent way over 30 years. It provides a unique look at how electronic journals and other developments have influenced changes in reading behavior over three decades. The use of critical incidence provides evidence of the value of reading in addition to reading patterns.

0.030193392 = product of:
  0.060386784 = sum of:
    0.060386784 = product of:
      0.12077357 = sum of:
        0.12077357 = weight(_text_:journals in 1823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12077357 = score(doc=1823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.47072473 = fieldWeight in 1823, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study reports an analysis of American Chemical Society electronic journal downloads at Cornell University by individual IP addresses. While the majority of users (IPs) limited themselves to a small number of both journals and article downloads, a small minority of heavy users had a large effect an total journal downloads. There was a very strong relationship between the number of article downloads and the number of users, implying that a user-population can be estimated by just knowing the total use of a journal. Aggregate users (i.e. Library Proxy Server and public library computers) can be regarded as a sample of the entire user population. Analysis of article downloads by format (PDF versus HTML) suggests that individuals are using the system like a networked photocopier, for the purposes of creating print-on-demand copies of articles.

0.030193392 = product of:
  0.060386784 = sum of:
    0.060386784 = product of:
      0.12077357 = sum of:
        0.12077357 = weight(_text_:journals in 4802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12077357 = score(doc=4802,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.47072473 = fieldWeight in 4802, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4802)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes an approach to the processing and presentation of online full-text journals that utilizes several evolving information technologies, including extensible markup language (XML) and extensible stylesheet language transformations (XSLT). Discusses major issues and trade-offs associated with these technologies, and also specific lessons learned from our use of these technologies in the Illinois Testbed of full-text journal articles. Focuses especially on issues associated with the representation of documents in XML, techniques to create and normalize metadata describing XML document instances, XSLT features employed in the Illinois Testbed, and trade-offs of different XSLT implementation options. Pays special attention to techniques for transforming between XML and HTML formats for rendering in today's commercial Web browsers.

0.02937247 = product of:
  0.05874494 = sum of:
    0.05874494 = product of:
      0.11748988 = sum of:
        0.11748988 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11748988 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4823, 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=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
18. 6.2000 9:11:22