Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.06780407 = product of:
  0.13560814 = sum of:
    0.13560814 = sum of:
      0.100308456 = weight(_text_:i in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100308456 = score(doc=5562,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.51037717 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.03529968 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529968 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22

0.042518027 = sum of:
  0.017947575 = product of:
    0.0717903 = sum of:
      0.0717903 = weight(_text_:authors in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0717903 = score(doc=2669,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024570452 = product of:
    0.049140904 = sum of:
      0.049140904 = weight(_text_:i in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049140904 = score(doc=2669,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored

0.04095075 = product of:
  0.0819015 = sum of:
    0.0819015 = product of:
      0.163803 = sum of:
        0.163803 = weight(_text_:i in 86) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.163803 = score(doc=86,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.83344233 = fieldWeight in 86, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=86)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.039127383 = sum of:
  0.017947575 = product of:
    0.0717903 = sum of:
      0.0717903 = weight(_text_:authors in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0717903 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021179808 = product of:
    0.042359617 = sum of:
      0.042359617 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042359617 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.03474787 = product of:
  0.06949574 = sum of:
    0.06949574 = product of:
      0.13899148 = sum of:
        0.13899148 = weight(_text_:i in 6580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13899148 = score(doc=6580,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.70719934 = fieldWeight in 6580, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.03474787 = product of:
  0.06949574 = sum of:
    0.06949574 = product of:
      0.13899148 = sum of:
        0.13899148 = weight(_text_:i in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13899148 = score(doc=17,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.70719934 = fieldWeight in 17, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=17)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.03474787 = product of:
  0.06949574 = sum of:
    0.06949574 = product of:
      0.13899148 = sum of:
        0.13899148 = weight(_text_:i in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13899148 = score(doc=34,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.70719934 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.028665528 = product of:
  0.057331055 = sum of:
    0.057331055 = product of:
      0.11466211 = sum of:
        0.11466211 = weight(_text_:i in 3746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11466211 = score(doc=3746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 3746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

0.024570452 = product of:
  0.049140904 = sum of:
    0.049140904 = product of:
      0.09828181 = sum of:
        0.09828181 = weight(_text_:i in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09828181 = score(doc=1423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Klassifikation und Erkenntnis I. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 1 "Klassifikation und Wissensgewinnung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979

0.024570452 = product of:
  0.049140904 = sum of:
    0.049140904 = product of:
      0.09828181 = sum of:
        0.09828181 = weight(_text_:i in 1653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09828181 = score(doc=1653,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 1653, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1653)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. zur Einführung in die Norm auch die Beiträge von W. Gödert: Bibliothekarische Klassifikationssysteme ... in: Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis 11(1987) und I. Dahlberg: DIN 32705: ... in: International classification 19(1992)

0.023165245 = product of:
  0.04633049 = sum of:
    0.04633049 = product of:
      0.09266098 = sum of:
        0.09266098 = weight(_text_:i in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09266098 = score(doc=641,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.4714662 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Inhalt: Classification: definition and uses - The relationships between classes - Enumerative and faceted schemes - Decisions - The construction of a faceted scheme: I - The construction of a faceted scheme: II - Notation: I - Notation: II - Notation: III - The alphabetical subject index - General classification schemes - Objections to systematic order - Automatic classification

0.02266209 = product of:
  0.04532418 = sum of:
    0.04532418 = product of:
      0.09064836 = sum of:
        0.09064836 = weight(_text_:i in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09064836 = score(doc=3536,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.46122587 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.

0.021179808 = product of:
  0.042359617 = sum of:
    0.042359617 = product of:
      0.08471923 = sum of:
        0.08471923 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08471923 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, 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=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.021179808 = product of:
  0.042359617 = sum of:
    0.042359617 = product of:
      0.08471923 = sum of:
        0.08471923 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08471923 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, 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=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.021179808 = product of:
  0.042359617 = sum of:
    0.042359617 = product of:
      0.08471923 = sum of:
        0.08471923 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08471923 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, 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=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.020475375 = product of:
  0.04095075 = sum of:
    0.04095075 = product of:
      0.0819015 = sum of:
        0.0819015 = weight(_text_:i in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0819015 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.0163803 = product of:
  0.0327606 = sum of:
    0.0327606 = product of:
      0.0655212 = sum of:
        0.0655212 = weight(_text_:i in 3527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0655212 = score(doc=3527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 3527, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

0.0163803 = product of:
  0.0327606 = sum of:
    0.0327606 = product of:
      0.0655212 = sum of:
        0.0655212 = weight(_text_:i in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0655212 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

0.014478277 = product of:
  0.028956555 = sum of:
    0.028956555 = product of:
      0.05791311 = sum of:
        0.05791311 = weight(_text_:i in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05791311 = score(doc=5800,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

0.014332764 = product of:
  0.028665528 = sum of:
    0.028665528 = product of:
      0.057331055 = sum of:
        0.057331055 = weight(_text_:i in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057331055 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i