Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016255727 = product of:
  0.11379009 = sum of:
    0.028440988 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028440988 = score(doc=1447,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.0853491 = sum of:
      0.06907709 = weight(_text_:texts in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06907709 = score(doc=1447,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03002521 = queryNorm
          0.4196496 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.016272005 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016272005 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03002521 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, 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=1447)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.01541713 = product of:
  0.1079199 = sum of:
    0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 1747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05092278 = score(doc=1747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 1747, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1747)
    0.05699712 = product of:
      0.11399424 = sum of:
        0.11399424 = weight(_text_:schemes in 1747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11399424 = score(doc=1747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.7094823 = fieldWeight in 1747, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

0.006302292 = product of:
  0.044116043 = sum of:
    0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024005229 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.020110816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020110816 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This article describes the journey from the conception of and vision for a modern search-engine-based search environment to its technological realisation. In doing so, it takes up the thread of an earlier article on this subject, this time from a technical viewpoint. As well as presenting the conceptual considerations of the initial stages, this article will principally elucidate the technological aspects of this journey. The starting point for the deliberations about development of an academic search engine was the experience we gained through the generally successful project "Digital Library NRW", in which from 1998 to 2000-with Bielefeld University Library in overall charge-we designed a system model for an Internet-based library portal with an improved academic search environment at its core. At the heart of this system was a metasearch with an availability function, to which we added a user interface integrating all relevant source material for study and research. The deficiencies of this approach were felt soon after the system was launched in June 2001. There were problems with the stability and performance of the database retrieval system, with the integration of full-text documents and Internet pages, and with acceptance by users, because users are increasingly performing the searches themselves using search engines rather than going to the library for help in doing searches. Since a long list of problems are also encountered using commercial search engines for academic use (in particular the retrieval of academic information and long-term availability), the idea was born for a search engine configured specifically for academic use. We also hoped that with one single access point founded on improved search engine technology, we could access the heterogeneous academic resources of subject-based bibliographic databases, catalogues, electronic newspapers, document servers and academic web pages.

0.0042435653 = product of:
  0.059409913 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 1931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=1931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 1931, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1931)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0042435653 = product of:
  0.059409913 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=4111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 4111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4111)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Subject Portals Project

0.0036373418 = product of:
  0.05092278 = sum of:
    0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 1745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05092278 = score(doc=1745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 1745, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1745)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0030311183 = product of:
  0.042435654 = sum of:
    0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042435654 = score(doc=1938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 1938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1938)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0023963093 = product of:
  0.03354833 = sum of:
    0.03354833 = weight(_text_:subject in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354833 = score(doc=1219,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3124028 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

For those building digital library services, the organisational barriers are sometimes far more intractable than technological issues. This was firmly flagged in one of the first workshops focusing specifically on the digital library research agenda: Digital libraries are not simply technological constructs; they exist within a rich legal, social, and economic context, and will succeed only to the extent that they meet these broader needs. The innovatory drive within the development of digital library services thrives on the tension between meeting both technical and social imperatives. The Renardus project partners have previously taken parts in projects establishing the technical basis for subject gateways (e.g., ROADS, DESIRE], EELS) and are aware that technical barriers to interoperability are outweighed by challenges relating to the organisational and business models used. Within the Renardus project there has been a determination to address these organisational and business issues from the beginning. Renardus intends initially to create a pilot service, targeting the European scholar with a single point of access to quality selected Web resources. Looking ahead beyond current project funding, it aims to create the organisational and technological infrastructure for a sustainable service. This means the project is concerned with the range of processes required to establish a viable service, and is explicitly addressing business issues as well as providing a technical infrastructure. The overall aim of Renardus is to establish a collaborative framework for European subject gateways that will benefit both users in terms of enhanced services, and the gateways themselves in terms of shared solutions. In order to achieve this aim, Renardus will provide firstly a pilot service for the European academic and research communities brokering access to those European-based information gateways that currently participate in the project; in other words, brokering to gateways that are already in existence. Secondly the project will explore ways to establish the organisational basis for co-operative efforts such as metadata sharing, joint technical solutions and agreement on standardisation. It is intended that this exploration will feed back valuable experience to the individual participating gateways to suggest ways their services can be enhanced.
Funding from the UK Electronic Libraries (eLib) programme and the European Community's Fourth Framework programme assisted the initial emergence of information gateways (e.g., SOSIG, EEVL, OMNI in the UK, and EELS in Sweden). Other gateways have been developed by initiatives co-ordinated by national libraries (such as DutchESS in the Netherlands, and AVEL and EdNA in Australia) and by universities and research funding bodies (e.g., GEM in the US, the Finnish Virtual Library, and the German SSG-FI services). An account of the emergence of subject gateways since the mid-1990s by Dempsey gives an historical perspective -- informed by UK experience in particular -- and also considers the future development of subject gateways in relation to other services. When considering the development and future of gateways, it would be helpful to have a clear definition of the service offered by a so-called 'subject gateway'. Precise definitions of 'information gateways', 'subject gateways' and 'quality controlled subject gateways' have been debated elsewhere. Koch has reviewed definitions and suggested typologies that are useful, not least in showing the differences that exist between broadly similar services. Working definitions that we will use in this article are that a subject gateway provides a search service to high quality Web resources selected from a particular subject area, whereas information gateways have a wider criteria for selection of resources, e.g., a national approach. Inevitably in a rapidly changing international environment different people perceive different emphases in attempts to label services, the significant issue is that users, developers and designers can recognise and benefit from commonalties in approach.
The Renardus project has brought together gateways that are 'large-scale national initiatives'. Within the European context this immediately introduces a diversity of organisations, as responsibility for national gateway initiatives is located differently, for example, in national libraries, national agencies with responsibility for educational technology infrastructure, and within universities or consortia of universities. Within the project, gateways are in some cases represented directly by their own personnel, in some cases by other departments or research centres, but not always by the people responsible for providing the gateway service. For example, the UK Resource Discovery Network (RDN) is represented in the project by UKOLN (formerly part of the Resource Discovery Network Centre) and the Institute of Learning and Research Technology (ILRT), University of Bristol -- an RDN 'hub' service provider -- who are primarily responsible for dissemination. Since the start of the project there have been changes within the organisational structures providing gateways and within the service ambitions of gateways themselves. Such lack of stability is inherent within the Internet service environment, and this presents challenges to Renardus activity that has to be planned for a three-year period. For example, within the gateway's funding environment there is now an exploration of 'subject portals' offering more extended services than gateways. There is also potential commercial interest for including gateways as a value-added component to existing commercial services, and new offerings from possible competitors such as Google's Web Directory and country based services. This short update on the Renardus project intends to inform the reader of progress within the project and to give some wider context to its main themes by locating the project within the broader arena of digital library activity. There are twelve partners in the project from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, as well as the UK. In particular we will focus on the specific activity in which UKOLN is involved: the architectural design, the specification of functional requirements, reaching consensus on a collaborative business model, etc. We will also consider issues of metadata management where all partners have interests. We will highlight implementation issues that connect to areas of debate elsewhere. In particular we see connections with activity related to establishing architectural models for digital library services, connections to the services that may emerge from metadata sharing using the Open Archives Initiative metadata sharing protocol, and links with work elsewhere on navigation of digital information spaces by means of controlled vocabularies.

0.0012124473 = product of:
  0.016974261 = sum of:
    0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016974261 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.