Search (32 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 5742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=5742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 5742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5742)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In Zusammenarbeit mit der norwegischen Suchtechnologie-Firma Fast Search & Transfer hat die Universitätsbibliothek Bielefeld den Prototyp einer Suchmaschine für wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken entwickelt. Dieser demonstriert jetzt mit dem öffentlichen Zugriff auf ausgewählte digitalisierte Sammlungen der Projektteilnehmer die neuen Möglichkeiten des akademischen Retrieval. <http://www.heise.de/RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.ads/www.heise.de/newsticker/meldungen/wissenschaft/954604605/Middle1/he-test-contentads/zaehler.html/38363566383735383364653062323630?_RM_EMPTY_> Während kommerzielle Suchmaschinen wie Google oder Yahoo sich nicht an akademischen Kriterien orientieren, beschränkt sich die Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE ) auf die von wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken erschlossenen und aufbereiteten Inhalte. Dazu gehören Hochschulschriften, Preprints, elektronische Zeitschriften und digitale Sammlungen, wie beispielsweise die "Internet Library of Early Journals" des Oxford University Library Service und die "Wissenschaftlichen Rezensionsorgane und Literaturzeitschriften des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts aus dem deutschen Sprachraum" der UB Bielefeld. Wer etwa bei Google die Stichworte "Immanuel Kant" +Frieden eingibt, kommt zwar schnell an den Originaltext des Aufsatzes "Zum ewigen Frieden" heran, tut sich jedoch schwer, unter den bunt gemischten über 11.000 Treffern gezielt weiter zu recherchieren. Das BASE-Modell dagegen stellt dem Nutzer hierfür vielfältige Navigationshilfen und Metainformationen zur Verfügung. So erleichtert unter anderem die Verfeinerung der Suche auf das Erscheinungsjahr den Zugriff auf die zeitgenössische Diskussion der berühmten Schrift des Königsberger Philosophen. Derzeit ermöglicht der BASE-Prototyp das Retrieval in 15 verschiedenen Archivquellen. Darunter befinden sich die Zeitschriften der Aufklärung, die Elektronischen Dissertationen der Universität Bochum, das elektronische Journal Documenta Mathematica sowie die Mathematischen Volltexte des Springer-Verlags. Der geplante Ausbau soll sich auf eine verteilte Architektur stützen, in der von einzelnen Bibliotheken lokal erstellte Indexe gemeinsam zu einem virtuellen Master-Index beitragen. Dies würde dem Nutzer die nahtlose Navigation durch die verteilten Bestände erlauben."

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.41, 2022

0.0061664553 = product of:
  0.024665821 = sum of:
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the architecture and implementation of the Semantic Web Search Engine (SWSE). Following traditional search engine architecture, SWSE consists of crawling, data enhancing, indexing and a user interface for search, browsing and retrieval of information; unlike traditional search engines, SWSE operates over RDF Web data - loosely also known as Linked Data - which implies unique challenges for the system design, architecture, algorithms, implementation and user interface. In particular, many challenges exist in adopting Semantic Web technologies for Web data: the unique challenges of the Web - in terms of scale, unreliability, inconsistency and noise - are largely overlooked by the current Semantic Web standards. Herein, we describe the current SWSE system, initially detailing the architecture and later elaborating upon the function, design, implementation and performance of each individual component. In so doing, we also give an insight into how current Semantic Web standards can be tailored, in a best-effort manner, for use on Web data. Throughout, we offer evaluation and complementary argumentation to support our design choices, and also offer discussion on future directions and open research questions. Later, we also provide candid discussion relating to the difficulties currently faced in bringing such a search engine into the mainstream, and lessons learnt from roughly six years working on the Semantic Web Search Engine project.

0.005232411 = product of:
  0.020929644 = sum of:
    0.020929644 = product of:
      0.041859288 = sum of:
        0.041859288 = weight(_text_:project in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041859288 = score(doc=754,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19785848 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The preliminary intended and approved list was: Section 1: To concentrate on Google as virtual monopoly, and Google's reported support of Wikipedia. To find experimental evidence of this support or show that the reports are not more than rumours. Section 2: To address the copy-past syndrome with socio-cultural consequences associated with it. Section 3: To deal with plagiarism and IPR violations as two intertwined topics: how they affect various players (teachers and pupils in school; academia; corporations; governmental studies, etc.). To establish that not enough is done concerning these issues, partially due to just plain ignorance. We will propose some ways to alleviate the problem. Section 4: To discuss the usual tools to fight plagiarism and their shortcomings. Section 5: To propose ways to overcome most of above problems according to proposals by Maurer/Zaka. To examples, but to make it clear that do this more seriously a pilot project is necessary beyond this particular study. Section 6: To briefly analyze various views of plagiarism as it is quite different in different fields (journalism, engineering, architecture, painting, .) and to present a concept that avoids plagiarism from the very beginning. Section 7: To point out the many other dangers of Google or Google-like undertakings: opportunistic ranking, analysis of data as window into commercial future. Section 8: To outline the need of new international laws. Section 9: To mention the feeble European attempts to fight Google, despite Google's growing power. Section 10. To argue that there is no way to catch up with Google in a frontal attack.
We believe that the importance has shifted considerably since the approval of the project. We thus will emphasize some aspects much more than ever planned, and treat others in a shorter fashion. We believe and hope that this is also seen as unexpected benefit by BMVIT. This report is structured as follows: After an Executive Summary that will highlight why the topic is of such paramount importance we explain in an introduction possible optimal ways how to study the report and its appendices. We can report with some pride that many of the ideas have been accepted by the international scene at conferences and by journals as of such crucial importance that a number of papers (constituting the appendices and elaborating the various sections) have been considered high quality material for publication. We want to thank the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) for making this study possible. We would be delighted if the study can be distributed widely to European decision makers, as some of the issues involved do indeed involve all of Europe, if not the world.

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:35:09

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2564, 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=2564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2565, 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=2565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

0.0036998733 = product of:
  0.014799493 = sum of:
    0.014799493 = product of:
      0.029598987 = sum of:
        0.029598987 = weight(_text_:project in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029598987 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.13990708 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"One of the things I enjoyed the most when I was a reference librarian was the wide range of questions my clients sent my way. What was the original title of the first Godzilla movie? (Gojira, released in 1954) Who said 'I'm as pure as the driven slush'? (Tallulah Bankhead) What percentage of adults have gone to a jazz performance in the last year? (11%) I have found that librarians, speech writers and journalists have one thing in common - we all need to find information on all kinds of topics, and we usually need the answers right now. The following are a few of my favorite sites for finding answers to those there-must-be-an-answer-out-there questions. - For the electronic equivalent to the "ready reference" shelf of resources that most librarians keep hidden behind their desks, check out RefDesk . It is particularly good for answering factual questions - Where do I get the new Windows XP Service Pack? Where is the 386 area code? How do I contact my member of Congress? - Another resource for lots of those quick-fact questions is InfoPlease, the publishers of the Information Please almanac .- Right now, it's full of Olympics data, but it also has links to facts and factoids that you would look up in an almanac, atlas, or encyclopedia. - If you want numbers, start with the Statistical Abstract of the US. This source, produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, gives you everything from the divorce rate by state to airline cost indexes going back to 1980. It is many librarians' secret weapon for pulling numbers together quickly. - My favorite question is "how does that work?" Haven't you ever wondered how they get that Olympic torch to continue to burn while it is being carried by runners from one city to the next? Or how solar sails manage to propel a spacecraft? For answers, check out the appropriately-named How Stuff Works. - For questions about movies, my first resource is the Internet Movie Database. It is easy to search, is such a popular site that mistakes are corrected quickly, and is a fun place to catch trailers of both upcoming movies and those dating back to the 30s. - When I need to figure out who said what, I still tend to rely on the print sources such as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations . No, the current edition is not available on the web, but - and this is the librarian in me - I really appreciate the fact that I not only get the attribution but I also see the source of the quote. There are far too many quotes being attributed to a celebrity, but with no indication of the publication in which the quote appeared. Take, for example, the much-cited quote of Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" Then see the page on the Institute for Intercultural Studies site, founded by Meade, and read its statement that it has never been able to verify this alleged quote from Meade. While there are lots of web-based sources of quotes (see QuotationsPage.com and Bartleby, for example), unless the site provides the original source for the quotation, I wouldn't rely on the citation. Of course, if you have a hunch as to the source of a quote, and it was published prior to 1923, head over to Project Gutenberg , which includes the full text of over 12,000 books that are in the public domain. When I needed to confirm a quotation of the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", this is where I started. - And if you are stumped as to where to go to find information, instead of Googling it, try the Librarians' Index to the Internet. While it is somewhat US-centric, it is a great directory of web resources."

0.0033953832 = product of:
  0.013581533 = sum of:
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=3447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3447, 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=3447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2017 10:16:49

0.0033499864 = product of:
  0.013399946 = sum of:
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Imagine a library containing 25 billion documents but with no centralized organization and no librarians. In addition, anyone may add a document at any time without telling anyone. You may feel sure that one of the documents contained in the collection has a piece of information that is vitally important to you, and, being impatient like most of us, you'd like to find it in a matter of seconds. How would you go about doing it? Posed in this way, the problem seems impossible. Yet this description is not too different from the World Wide Web, a huge, highly-disorganized collection of documents in many different formats. Of course, we're all familiar with search engines (perhaps you found this article using one) so we know that there is a solution. This article will describe Google's PageRank algorithm and how it returns pages from the web's collection of 25 billion documents that match search criteria so well that "google" has become a widely used verb. Most search engines, including Google, continually run an army of computer programs that retrieve pages from the web, index the words in each document, and store this information in an efficient format. Each time a user asks for a web search using a search phrase, such as "search engine," the search engine determines all the pages on the web that contains the words in the search phrase. (Perhaps additional information such as the distance between the words "search" and "engine" will be noted as well.) Here is the problem: Google now claims to index 25 billion pages. Roughly 95% of the text in web pages is composed from a mere 10,000 words. This means that, for most searches, there will be a huge number of pages containing the words in the search phrase. What is needed is a means of ranking the importance of the pages that fit the search criteria so that the pages can be sorted with the most important pages at the top of the list. One way to determine the importance of pages is to use a human-generated ranking. For instance, you may have seen pages that consist mainly of a large number of links to other resources in a particular area of interest. Assuming the person maintaining this page is reliable, the pages referenced are likely to be useful. Of course, the list may quickly fall out of date, and the person maintaining the list may miss some important pages, either unintentionally or as a result of an unstated bias. Google's PageRank algorithm assesses the importance of web pages without human evaluation of the content. In fact, Google feels that the value of its service is largely in its ability to provide unbiased results to search queries; Google claims, "the heart of our software is PageRank." As we'll see, the trick is to ask the web itself to rank the importance of pages.

0.0030832277 = product of:
  0.012332911 = sum of:
    0.012332911 = product of:
      0.024665821 = sum of:
        0.024665821 = weight(_text_:project in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024665821 = score(doc=1165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.116589226 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Auch das bringt was: Gezielte Plattformwechsel Das versucht auch ein Dienst wie Pandia : Der Metasearcher kombiniert in seinen Anfragen gute Searchengines mit der Vollindexierung qualitativ hochwertiger Inhalte-Angebote. So kombiniert Pandia gezielt die Encyclopedia Britannica, Lexika und Searchengines mit den Datenbeständen von Amazon. Wozu das gut sein soll und kann, zeigt das praktische Beispiel einer sehr sachlich orientierten Suche: "Retina Implant". Dabei geht es um Techniken, über oparative Eingriffe und Implantate an Netzhaut-Degeneration erblindeter Menschen das Augenlicht (zumindest teilweise) wieder zu geben. Pandia beantwortet die Suche zunächst mit dem Verweis auf etliche universitäre und privatwirtschaftliche Forschungsinstitute. 13 von 15 Suchergebnissen sind 100 Prozent relevant: Hier geht es ab in die Forschung. Die letzten beiden verweisen zum einen auf eine Firma, die solche Implantate herstellt, die andere auf einen Fachkongress unter anderem zu diesem Thema: Das ist schon beeindruckend treffsicher. Und dann geht's erst los: Mit einem Klick überträgt Pandia die Suchabfrage auf das Suchmuster "Nachrichtensuche", als Resultat werden Presse- und Medienberichte geliefert. Deren Relevanz ist leicht niedriger: Um Implantate geht es immer, um Augen nicht unbedingt, aber in den meisten Fällen. Nicht schlecht. Noch ein Klick, und die Suche im "Pandia Plus Directory" reduziert die Trefferanzahl auf zwei: Ein Treffer führt zur Beschreibung des universitären "Retinal Implant Project", der andere zu Intelligent Implants, einer von Bonner Forschern gegründeten Firma, die sich auf solche Implantate spezialisiert hat - und nebenbei weltweit zu den führenden zählt. Noch ein Klick, und Pandia versucht, Bücher zum Thema zu finden: Die gibt es bisher nicht, aber mit Pandias Hilfe ließe sich sicher eins recherchieren und schreiben. Trotzdem: Keiner der angesprochenen Dienste taugt zum Universalwerkzeug. Was der eine kann, das schafft der andere nicht. Da hilft nur ausprobieren. Der Suchdienst muss zum Sucher passen. Fazit und Ausblick So gut Google auch ist, es geht noch besser. Die intelligente Kombination der besten Fertigkeiten guter Suchwerkzeuge schlägt selbst den Platzhirsch unter den Suchdiensten. Doch darum geht es ja gar nicht. Es geht darum, die Suche im Web effektiv zu gestalten, und das will nach wie vor gelernt sein. Noch einfacher und effektiver geht das mit zahlreichen, oft kostenlosen Werkzeugen, die entweder als eigenständige Software (Bots) für Suche und Archivierung sorgen, oder aber als Add-On in den heimischen Browser integriert werden können. Doch dazu mehr im zweiten Teil dieses kleinen Web-Wanderführers"

0.0027071978 = product of:
  0.010828791 = sum of:
    0.010828791 = weight(_text_:library in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010828791 = score(doc=1555,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.08216808 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

The View From Above Browsing for a particular piece on information on the Web can often feel like being stuck in an unfamiliar part of town walking around at street level looking for a particular store. You know the store is around there somewhere, but your viewpoint at ground level is constrained. What you really want is to get above the streets, hovering half a mile or so up in the air, to see the whole neighbourhood. This kind of birds-eye view function has been memorably described by David D. Clark, Senior Research Scientist at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science and the Chairman of the Invisible Worlds Protocol Advisory Board, as the missing "up button" on the browser [3] . ET-Map is a nice example of a prototype for Clark's "up-button" view of an information space. The goal of information maps, like ET-Map, is to provide the browser with a sense of the lie of the information landscape, what is where, the location of clusters and hotspots, what is related to what. Ideally, this 'big-picture' all-in-one visual summary needs to fit on a single standard computer screen. ET-Map is one of my favourite examples, but there are many other interesting information maps being developed by other researchers and companies (see inset at the bottom of this page). How does ET-Map work? Here is a sequence of screenshots of a typical browsing session with ET-Map, which ends with access to Web pages on jazz musician Miles Davis. You can also tryout ET-Map for yourself, using a fully working demo on the AI Lab's website [4] . We begin with the top-level map showing forty odd broad entertainment 'subject regions' represented by regularly shaped tiles. Each tile is a visual summary of a group of Web pages with similar content. These tiles are shaded different colours to differentiate them, while labels identify the subject of the tile and the number in brackets telling you how many individual Web page links it contains. ET-Map uses two important, but common-sense, spatial concepts in its organisation and representation of the Web. Firstly, the 'subject regions' size is directly related to the number of Web pages in that category. For example, the 'MUSIC' subject area contains over 11,000 pages and so has a much larger area than the neighbouring area of 'LIVE' which only has 4,300 odd pages. This is intuitively meaningful, as the largest tiles are visually more prominent on the map and are likely to be more significant as they contain the most links. In addition, a second spatial concept, that of neighbourhood proximity, is applied so 'subject regions' closely related in term of content are plotted close to each other on the map. For example, 'FILM' and 'YEAR'S OSCARS', at the bottom left, are neighbours in both semantic and spatial space. This make senses as many things in the real-world are ordered in this way, with things that are alike being spatially close together (e.g. layout of goods in a store, or books in a library). Importantly, ET-Map is also a multi-layer map, with sub-maps showing greater informational resolution through a finer degree of categorization. So for any subject region that contains more than two hundred Web pages, a second-level map, with more detailed categories is generated. This subdivision of information space is repeated down the hierarchy as far as necessary. In the example, the user selected the 'MUSIC' subject region which, not surprisingly, contained many thousands of pages. A second-level map with numerous different music categories is then presented to the user. Delving deeper, the user wants to learn more about jazz music, so clicking on the 'JAZZ' tile leads to a third-level map, a fine-grained map of jazz related Web pages. Finally, selecting the 'MILES DAVIS' subject region leads to more a conventional looking ranking of pages from which the user selects one to download.
Research Prototypes Visual SiteMap Developed by Xia Lin, based at the College of Library and Information Science, Drexel University. CVG Cyberspace geography visualization, developed by Luc Girardin, at The Graduate Institute of International Studies, Switzerland. WEBSOM Maps the thousands of articles posted on Usenet newsgroups. It is being developed by researchers at the Neural Networks Research Centre, Helsinki University of Technology in Finland. TreeMaps Developed by Brian Johnson, Ben Shneiderman and colleagues in the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at the University of Maryland. Commercial Information Maps: NewsMaps Provides interactive information landscapes summarizing daily news stories, developed Cartia, Inc. Web Squirrel Creates maps known as information farms. It is developed by Eastgate Systems, Inc. Umap Produces interactive maps of Web searches. Map of the Market An interactive map of the market performance of the stocks of major US corporations developed by SmartMoney.com."