Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Literaturübersicht"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.06
    0.05500804 = product of:
      0.11001608 = sum of:
        0.11001608 = sum of:
          0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.06081203 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
          0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04920405 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.06
    0.05500804 = product of:
      0.11001608 = sum of:
        0.11001608 = sum of:
          0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.06081203 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
          0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04920405 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. Enser, P.G.B.: Visual image retrieval (2008) 0.02
    0.024602026 = product of:
      0.04920405 = sum of:
        0.04920405 = product of:
          0.0984081 = sum of:
            0.0984081 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0984081 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2012 13:01:26
  4. Morris, S.A.: Mapping research specialties (2008) 0.02
    0.024602026 = product of:
      0.04920405 = sum of:
        0.04920405 = product of:
          0.0984081 = sum of:
            0.0984081 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0984081 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3962)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    13. 7.2008 9:30:22
  5. Fallis, D.: Social epistemology and information science (2006) 0.02
    0.024602026 = product of:
      0.04920405 = sum of:
        0.04920405 = product of:
          0.0984081 = sum of:
            0.0984081 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0984081 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:22:28
  6. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02
    0.024602026 = product of:
      0.04920405 = sum of:
        0.04920405 = product of:
          0.0984081 = sum of:
            0.0984081 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0984081 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  7. Fischer, K.S.: Critical views of LCSH, 1990-2001 : the third bibliographic essay (2005) 0.02
    0.021246849 = product of:
      0.042493697 = sum of:
        0.042493697 = product of:
          0.084987395 = sum of:
            0.084987395 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.084987395 = score(doc=5738,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.480894 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This classified critical bibliography continues the work initiated by Monika Kirtland and Pauline Cochrane, and furthered by Steven Blake Shubert. Kirtland and Cochrane published a bibliography surveying the literature critical of LCSH from 1944-1979 titled "Critical Views of LCSH - Library of Congress Subject Headings, A Bibliographic and Bibliometric Essay." Shubert analyzed another decade of literature in his article titled "Critical Views of LCSH-Ten Years Later: A Bibliographic Essay." This current bibliography compiles the next twelve years of critical literature from 1990-2001. Persistent concerns of the past fifty-seven years include inadequate syndetic structure, currency or bias of the headings, and lack of specificity in the subject heading list. New developments and research are in the areas of subdivisions, mapping, indexer inconsistency, and post-coordination. LCSH must become more flexible and easier to use in order to increase its scalability and interoperability as an online subject searching tool.
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch die Vorgänger: Kirtland, M., P.A. Cochrane: Critical views of LCSH - Library of Congress Subject Headings: a bibliographic and bibliometric essay. In: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 1(1982) no.2/3, S.71-93. Shubert, S.B.: Critical views of LCSH - ten years later: a bibliographic essay. In: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 15(1992) no.2, S.37-97.
  8. Kim, K.-S.: Recent work in cataloging and classification, 2000-2002 (2003) 0.01
    0.012301013 = product of:
      0.024602026 = sum of:
        0.024602026 = product of:
          0.04920405 = sum of:
            0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04920405 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Downie, J.S.: Music information retrieval (2002) 0.01
    0.011402255 = product of:
      0.02280451 = sum of:
        0.02280451 = product of:
          0.04560902 = sum of:
            0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04560902 = score(doc=4287,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 4287, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4287)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Imagine a world where you walk up to a computer and sing the song fragment that has been plaguing you since breakfast. The computer accepts your off-key singing, corrects your request, and promptly suggests to you that "Camptown Races" is the cause of your irritation. You confirm the computer's suggestion by listening to one of the many MP3 files it has found. Satisfied, you kindly decline the offer to retrieve all extant versions of the song, including a recently released Italian rap rendition and an orchestral score featuring a bagpipe duet. Does such a system exist today? No. Will it in the future? Yes. Will such a system be easy to produce? Most decidedly not. Myriad difficulties remain to be overcome before the creation, deployment, and evaluation of robust, large-scale, and content-based Music Information Retrieval (MIR) systems become reality. The dizzyingly complex interaction of music's pitch, temporal, harmonic, timbral, editorial, textual, and bibliographic "facets," for example, demonstrates just one of MIR's perplexing problems. The choice of music representation-whether symbol-based, audio-based, or both-further compounds matters, as each choice determines bandwidth, computation, storage, retrieval, and interface requirements and capabilities.
  10. Nielsen, M.L.: Thesaurus construction : key issues and selected readings (2004) 0.01
    0.010763386 = product of:
      0.021526773 = sum of:
        0.021526773 = product of:
          0.043053545 = sum of:
            0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043053545 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    18. 5.2006 20:06:22
  11. Weiss, A.K.; Carstens, T.V.: ¬The year's work in cataloging, 1999 (2001) 0.01
    0.010763386 = product of:
      0.021526773 = sum of:
        0.021526773 = product of:
          0.043053545 = sum of:
            0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043053545 = score(doc=6084,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6084, 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=6084)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  12. Genereux, C.: Building connections : a review of the serials literature 2004 through 2005 (2007) 0.01
    0.00922576 = product of:
      0.01845152 = sum of:
        0.01845152 = product of:
          0.03690304 = sum of:
            0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03690304 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2548, 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=2548)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Corbett, L.E.: Serials: review of the literature 2000-2003 (2006) 0.01
    0.0076881335 = product of:
      0.015376267 = sum of:
        0.015376267 = product of:
          0.030752534 = sum of:
            0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030752534 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  14. Börner, K.; Chen, C.; Boyack, K.W.: Visualizing knowledge domains (2002) 0.01
    0.006651316 = product of:
      0.013302632 = sum of:
        0.013302632 = product of:
          0.026605263 = sum of:
            0.026605263 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026605263 = score(doc=4286,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.15054363 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter reviews visualization techniques that can be used to map the ever-growing domain structure of scientific disciplines and to support information retrieval and classification. In contrast to the comprehensive surveys conducted in traditional fashion by Howard White and Katherine McCain (1997, 1998), this survey not only reviews emerging techniques in interactive data analysis and information visualization, but also depicts the bibliographical structure of the field itself. The chapter starts by reviewing the history of knowledge domain visualization. We then present a general process flow for the visualization of knowledge domains and explain commonly used techniques. In order to visualize the domain reviewed by this chapter, we introduce a bibliographic data set of considerable size, which includes articles from the citation analysis, bibliometrics, semantics, and visualization literatures. Using tutorial style, we then apply various algorithms to demonstrate the visualization effectsl produced by different approaches and compare the results. The domain visualizations reveal the relationships within and between the four fields that together constitute the focus of this chapter. We conclude with a general discussion of research possibilities. Painting a "big picture" of scientific knowledge has long been desirable for a variety of reasons. Traditional approaches are brute forcescholars must sort through mountains of literature to perceive the outlines of their field. Obviously, this is time-consuming, difficult to replicate, and entails subjective judgments. The task is enormously complex. Sifting through recently published documents to find those that will later be recognized as important is labor intensive. Traditional approaches struggle to keep up with the pace of information growth. In multidisciplinary fields of study it is especially difficult to maintain an overview of literature dynamics. Painting the big picture of an everevolving scientific discipline is akin to the situation described in the widely known Indian legend about the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes, six blind men were trying to find out what an elephant looked like. They touched different parts of the elephant and quickly jumped to their conclusions. The one touching the body said it must be like a wall; the one touching the tail said it was like a snake; the one touching the legs said it was like a tree trunk, and so forth. But science does not stand still; the steady stream of new scientific literature creates a continuously changing structure. The resulting disappearance, fusion, and emergence of research areas add another twist to the tale-it is as if the elephant is running and dynamically changing its shape. Domain visualization, an emerging field of study, is in a similar situation. Relevant literature is spread across disciplines that have traditionally had few connections. Researchers examining the domain from a particular discipline cannot possibly have an adequate understanding of the whole. As noted by White and McCain (1997), the new generation of information scientists is technically driven in its efforts to visualize scientific disciplines. However, limited progress has been made in terms of connecting pioneers' theories and practices with the potentialities of today's enabling technologies. If the difference between past and present generations lies in the power of available technologies, what they have in common is the ultimate goal-to reveal the development of scientific knowledge.