Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.03609527 = product of:
  0.1082858 = sum of:
    0.08350956 = weight(_text_:themes in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08350956 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29391772 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.28412563 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.02477624 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02477624 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.02783652 = product of:
  0.16701911 = sum of:
    0.16701911 = weight(_text_:themes in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16701911 = score(doc=1205,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.29391772 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.56825125 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Music websites are ubiquitous, and music downloads, such as MP3, are a major source of Web traffic. As the amount of musical content increases and the Web becomes an important mechanism for distributing music, we expect to see a rising demand for music search services. Many currently available music search engines rely on file names, song title, composer or performer as the indexing and retrieval mechanism. These systems do not make use of the musical content. We believe that a more natural, effective, and usable music-information retrieval (MIR) system should have audio input, where the user can query with musical content. We are developing a system called MusArt for audio-input MIR. With MusArt, as with other audio-input MIR systems, a user sings or plays a theme, hook, or riff from the desired piece of music. The system transcribes the query and searches for related themes in a database, returning the most similar themes, given some measure of similarity. We call this "retrieval by query." In this paper, we describe the architecture of MusArt. An important element of MusArt is metadata creation: we believe that it is essential to automatically abstract important musical elements, particularly themes. Theme extraction is performed by a subsystem called MME, which we describe later in this paper. Another important element of MusArt is its support for a variety of search engines, as we believe that MIR is too complex for a single approach to work for all queries. Currently, MusArt supports a dynamic time-warping search engine that has high recall, and a complementary stochastic search engine that searches over themes, emphasizing speed and relevancy. The stochastic search engine is discussed in this paper.

0.014599541 = product of:
  0.08759724 = sum of:
    0.08759724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08759724 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, 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=4872)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.014452808 = product of:
  0.086716846 = sum of:
    0.086716846 = weight(_text_:22 in 6483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086716846 = score(doc=6483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6483, 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=6483)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:43:01

0.01391826 = product of:
  0.08350956 = sum of:
    0.08350956 = weight(_text_:themes in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08350956 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29391772 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.28412563 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The paper will explore the issues surrounding the development of an evaluation framework for a supranational digital library system, as seen through the TEL (The European Library) project. It will describe work an the project to date, and seek to establish what are the key drivers, priorities and barriers encountered, in developing such a framework. TEL is being funded by the EU as an Accompanying Measure in the IST program. Its main focus of is an consensus building, and also includes preparatory technical work to develop testbeds, which will gauge to what extent interoperability is achievable. In order for TEL to take its place as a major Information Society initiative of the EU, it needs to be closely attuned to the needs, expectations and realities of its user communities, which comprise the citizens of the project's national partners. To this end the evaluation framework described in this paper, is being developed by establishing the users' viewpoints and priorities in relation to the key project themes. A summary of the issues to be used in the baseline, and to be expanded upon in the paper, follows: - Establishing the differing contexts of the national library partners, and the differing national priorities which will impact an TEL - Exploring the differing expectations relating to building and using the hybrid library - Exploring the differing expectations relating to TEL. TEL needs to add value - what does this mean in each partner state, and for the individuals within them? 1. Introduction to TEL TEL (The European Library) is a thirty month project, funded by the European Commission as part of its Fifth Framework Programme for research. It aims to set up a co-operative framework for access to the major national, mainly digital, collections in European national libraries. TEL is funded as an Accompanying Measure, designed to support the work of the IST (Information Society Technologies) Programme an the development of access to cultural and scientific knowledge. TEL will stop short of becoming a live service during the lifetime of the project, and is focused an ensuring co-operative and concerted approaches to technical and business issues associated with large-scale content development. It will lay the policy and technical groundwork towards a pan European digital library based an distributed digital collections, and providing seamless access to the digital resources of major European national libraries. It began in February, 2001, and has eight national library partners: Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. It is also seeking to encourage the participation of all European national libraries in due course.

0.01391826 = product of:
  0.08350956 = sum of:
    0.08350956 = weight(_text_:themes in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08350956 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29391772 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.28412563 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative was formed to encourage scholarly communication and the sharing of data among researchers who emphasize the relationships between place, time, and topic in the study of culture and history. In an effort to develop better tools and practices, The Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative has sponsored the collaborative development of software for downloading and editing geo-temporal data to create dynamic maps, a clearinghouse of shared datasets accessible through a map-based interface, projects on format and content standards for gazetteers and time period directories, studies to improve geo-temporal aspects in online catalogs, good practice guidelines for preparing e-publications with dynamic geo-temporal displays, and numerous international conferences. The Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative (ECAI) grew out of discussions among an international group of scholars interested in religious history and area studies. It was established as a unit under the Dean of International and Area Studies at the University of California, Berkeley in 1997. ECAI's mission is to promote an international collaborative effort to transform humanities scholarship through use of the digital environment to share data and by placing greater emphasis on the notions of place and time. Professor Lewis Lancaster is the Director. Professor Michael Buckland, with a library and information studies background, joined the effort as Co-Director in 2000. Assistance from the Lilly Foundation, the California Digital Library (University of California), and other sources has enabled ECAI to nurture a community; to develop a catalog ("clearinghouse") of Internet-accessible georeferenced resources; to support the development of software for obtaining, editing, manipulating, and dynamically visualizing geo-temporally encoded data; and to undertake research and development projects as needs and resources determine. Several hundred scholars worldwide, from a wide range of disciplines, are informally affiliated with ECAI, all interested in shared use of historical and cultural data. The Academia Sinica (Taiwan), The British Library, and the Arts and Humanities Data Service (UK) are among the well-known affiliates. However, ECAI mainly comprises individual scholars and small teams working on their own small projects on a very wide range of cultural, social, and historical topics. Numerous specialist committees have been fostering standardization and collaboration by area and by themes such as trade-routes, cities, religion, and sacred sites.

0.01391826 = product of:
  0.08350956 = sum of:
    0.08350956 = weight(_text_:themes in 1832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08350956 = score(doc=1832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29391772 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.28412563 = fieldWeight in 1832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1832)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Welcome to the very first issue of EuropeanaTech Insight, a multimedia publication about research and development within the EuropeanaTech community. EuropeanaTech is a very active community. It spans all of Europe and is made up of technical experts from the various disciplines within digital cultural heritage. At any given moment, members can be found presenting their work in project meetings, seminars and conferences around the world. Now, through EuropeanaTech Insight, we can share that inspiring work with the whole community. In our first three issues, we're showcasing topics discussed at the EuropeanaTech 2015 Conference, an exciting event that gave rise to lots of innovative ideas and fruitful conversations on the themes of data quality, data modelling, open data, data re-use, multilingualism and discovery. Welcome, bienvenue, bienvenido, Välkommen, Tervetuloa to the first Issue of EuropeanaTech Insight. Are we talking your language? No? Well I can guarantee you Europeana is. One of the European Union's great beauties and strengths is its diversity. That diversity is perhaps most evident in the 24 different languages spoken in the EU. Making it possible for all European citizens to easily and seamlessly communicate in their native language with others who do not speak that language is a huge technical undertaking. Translating documents, news, speeches and historical texts was once exclusively done manually. Clearly, that takes a huge amount of time and resources and means that not everything can be translated... However, with the advances in machine and automatic translation, it's becoming more possible to provide instant and pretty accurate translations. Europeana provides access to over 40 million digitised cultural heritage offering content in over 33 languages. But what value does Europeana provide if people can only find results in their native language? None. That's why the EuropeanaTech community is collectively working towards making it more possible for everyone to discover our collections in their native language. In this issue of EuropeanaTech Insight, we hear from community members who are making great strides in machine translation and enrichment tools to help improve not only access to data, but also how we retrieve, browse and understand it.

0.01238812 = product of:
  0.07432872 = sum of:
    0.07432872 = weight(_text_:22 in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07432872 = score(doc=4865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4865, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4865)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:59

0.01238812 = product of:
  0.07432872 = sum of:
    0.07432872 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07432872 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6040)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.010323435 = product of:
  0.061940607 = sum of:
    0.061940607 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061940607 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4878)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.008698912 = product of:
  0.05219347 = sum of:
    0.05219347 = weight(_text_:themes in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05219347 = score(doc=1219,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29391772 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.17757851 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

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.

0.008258747 = product of:
  0.04955248 = sum of:
    0.04955248 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04955248 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.008258747 = product of:
  0.04955248 = sum of:
    0.04955248 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04955248 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.008258747 = product of:
  0.04955248 = sum of:
    0.04955248 = weight(_text_:22 in 4875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04955248 = score(doc=4875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4875, 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=4875)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:16

0.008258747 = product of:
  0.04955248 = sum of:
    0.04955248 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04955248 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, 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=628)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13

0.0072997706 = product of:
  0.04379862 = sum of:
    0.04379862 = weight(_text_:22 in 5801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04379862 = score(doc=5801,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 5801, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5801)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:22

0.007226404 = product of:
  0.043358423 = sum of:
    0.043358423 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043358423 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, 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=4866)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54

0.007226404 = product of:
  0.043358423 = sum of:
    0.043358423 = weight(_text_:22 in 4874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043358423 = score(doc=4874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4874, 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=4874)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:00

0.007226404 = product of:
  0.043358423 = sum of:
    0.043358423 = weight(_text_:22 in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043358423 = score(doc=631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 631, 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=631)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:37:55

0.007226404 = product of:
  0.043358423 = sum of:
    0.043358423 = weight(_text_:22 in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043358423 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16009413 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04571728 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2276, 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=2276)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.3, S.295-306