Search (71 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0044976794 = product of:
  0.022488397 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.11, S.1327-1340

0.004143218 = product of:
  0.02071609 = sum of:
    0.02071609 = product of:
      0.04143218 = sum of:
        0.04143218 = weight(_text_:aspects in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04143218 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of search interfaces of Swedish online museum collections, focussing on search functionalities with particular reference to subject searching, as well as the use of controlled vocabularies, with the purpose of identifying which improvements of the search interfaces are needed to ensure high-quality information retrieval for the end user. Design/methodology/approach In the first step, a set of 21 search interface criteria was identified, based on related research and current standards in the domain of cultural heritage knowledge organization. Secondly, a complete set of Swedish museums that provide online access to their collections was identified, comprising nine cross-search services and 91 individual museums' websites. These 100 websites were each evaluated against the 21 criteria, between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Findings Although many standards and guidelines are in place to ensure quality-controlled subject indexing, which in turn support information retrieval of relevant resources (as individual or full search results), the study shows that they are not broadly implemented, resulting in information retrieval failures for the end user. The study also demonstrates a strong need for the implementation of controlled vocabularies in these museums. Originality/value This study is a rare piece of research which examines subject searching in online museums; the 21 search criteria and their use in the analysis of the complete set of online collections of a country represents a considerable and unique contribution to the fields of knowledge organization and information retrieval of cultural heritage. Its particular value lies in showing how the needs of end users, many of which are documented and reflected in international standards and guidelines, should be taken into account in designing search tools for these museums; especially so in subject searching, which is the most complex and yet the most common type of search. Much effort has been invested into digitizing cultural heritage collections, but access to them is hindered by poor search functionality. This study identifies which are the most important aspects to improve.

0.0038164079 = product of:
  0.01908204 = sum of:
    0.01908204 = weight(_text_:technology in 4268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01908204 = score(doc=4268,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.1396119 = fieldWeight in 4268, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4268)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Computers have become our companions in many of the activities we pursue in our life. They assist us, in particular, in searching relevant information that is needed to perform a variety of tasks, from professional usage to personal entertainment. They hold this information in a huge number of heterogeneous sources, either dedicated to a specific user community (e.g., enterprise databases) or maintained for the general public (e.g., websites and digital libraries). Whereas progress in basic information technology is nowadays capable of guaranteeing effective information management, information retrieval and dissemination has become a core issue that needs further accomplishments to achieve user satisfaction. The research communities in databases, information retrieval, information visualization, and human-computer interaction have already largely investigated these domains. However, the technical environment has so dramatically evolved in recent years, inducing a parallel and very significant evolution in user habits and expectations, that new approaches are definitely needed to meet current demand. One of the most evident and significant changes is the human-computer interaction paradigm. Traditional interactions relayed an programming to express user information requirements in formal code and an textual output to convey to users the information extracted by the system. Except for professional data-intensive application frameworks, still in the hands of computer speciahsts, we have basically moved away from this pattern both in terms of expressing information requests and conveying results. The new goal is direct interaction with the final user (the person who is looking for information and is not necessarily familiar with computer technology). The key motto to achieve this is "go visual." The well-known high bandwidth of the human-vision channel allows both recognition and understanding of large quantities of information in no more than a few seconds. Thus, for instance, if the result of an information request can be organized as a visual display, or a sequence of visual displays, the information throughput is immensely superior to the one that can be achieved using textual support. User interaction becomes an iterative query-answer game that very rapidly leads to the desired final result. Conversely, the system can provide efficient visual support for easy query formulation. Displaying a visual representation of the information space, for instance, lets users directly point at the information they are looking for, without any need to be trained into the complex syntax of current query languages. Alternatively, users can navigate in the information space, following visible paths that will lead them to the targeted items. Again, thanks to the visual support, users are able to easily understand how to formulate queries and they are likely to achieve the task more rapidly and less prone to errors than with traditional textual interaction modes.

0.0035981436 = product of:
  0.017990718 = sum of:
    0.017990718 = weight(_text_:technology in 5215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017990718 = score(doc=5215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 5215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5215)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.8, S.666-675

0.0035981436 = product of:
  0.017990718 = sum of:
    0.017990718 = weight(_text_:technology in 2547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017990718 = score(doc=2547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 2547, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2547)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2015 - Cape Town, South Africa in Session 141 - Science and Technology.

0.0035981436 = product of:
  0.017990718 = sum of:
    0.017990718 = weight(_text_:technology in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017990718 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

With the terrific growth of data volume and data being produced every second on millions of devices across the globe, there is a desperate need to manage the unstructured data available on web pages efficiently. Semantic Web or also known as Web of Trust structures the scattered data on the Internet according to the needs of the user. It is an extension of the World Wide Web (WWW) which focuses on manipulating web data on behalf of Humans. Due to the ability of the Semantic Web to integrate data from disparate sources and hence makes it more user-friendly, it is an emerging trend. Tim Berners-Lee first introduced the term Semantic Web and since then it has come a long way to become a more intelligent and intuitive web. Data Visualization plays an essential role in explaining complex concepts in a universal manner through pictorial representation, and the Semantic Web helps in broadening the potential of Data Visualization and thus making it an appropriate combination. The objective of this chapter is to provide fundamental insights concerning the semantic web technologies and in addition to that it also elucidates the issues as well as the solutions regarding the semantic web. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the semantic web architecture in detail while also comparing it with the traditional search system. It classifies the semantic web architecture into three major pillars i.e. RDF, Ontology, and XML. Moreover, it describes different semantic web tools used in the framework and technology. It attempts to illustrate different approaches of the semantic web search engines. Besides stating numerous challenges faced by the semantic web it also illustrates the solutions.

0.0031483758 = product of:
  0.01574188 = sum of:
    0.01574188 = weight(_text_:technology in 4286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01574188 = score(doc=4286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.115173936 = fieldWeight in 4286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4286)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.179-258

0.0031087536 = product of:
  0.015543767 = sum of:
    0.015543767 = product of:
      0.031087535 = sum of:
        0.031087535 = weight(_text_:22 in 3070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031087535 = score(doc=3070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3070, 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=3070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0031087536 = product of:
  0.015543767 = sum of:
    0.015543767 = product of:
      0.031087535 = sum of:
        0.031087535 = weight(_text_:22 in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031087535 = score(doc=4641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4641, 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=4641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21.12.2018 17:22:13

0.0026986075 = product of:
  0.013493038 = sum of:
    0.013493038 = weight(_text_:technology in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013493038 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.09872051 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

When our experience of information discovery is mediated by a computer, we neither move ourselves nor the monitor. We have only the computer's monitor to view, and the keyboard and/or mouse to manipulate what is displayed there. Computer interfaces often reduce our ability to get a sense of the contents of a library: we don't perceive the scope of the library: its breadth, (the quantity of materials/information), its density (how full the shelves are, how thorough the collection is for individual topics), or the general audience for the materials (e.g., whether the materials are appropriate for middle school students, college professors, etc.). Additionally, many computer interfaces for information discovery require users to scroll through long lists, to click numerous navigational links and to read a lot of text to find the exact text they want to read. Text features of resources are almost always presented alphabetically, and the number of items in these alphabetical lists sometimes can be very long. Alphabetical ordering is certainly an improvement over no ordering, but it generally has no bearing on features with an inherent non-alphabetical ordering (e.g., dates of historical events), nor does it necessarily group similar items together. Alphabetical ordering of resources is analogous to one of the most familiar complaints about dictionaries: sometimes you need to know how to spell a word in order to look up its correct spelling in the dictionary. Some have used technology to replicate the appearance of physical libraries, presenting rooms of bookcases and shelves of book spines in virtual 3D environments. This approach presents a problem, as few book spines can be displayed legibly on a monitor screen. This article examines the role of book spines, call numbers, and other traditional organizational and information discovery concepts, and integrates this knowledge with information visualization techniques to show how computers and monitors can meet or exceed similar information discovery methods. The goal is to tap the unique potentials of current information visualization approaches in order to improve information discovery, offer new services, and most important of all, improve user satisfaction. We need to capitalize on what computers do well while bearing in mind their limitations. The intent is to design GUIs to optimize utility and provide a positive experience for the user.

0.0024870026 = product of:
  0.012435013 = sum of:
    0.012435013 = product of:
      0.024870027 = sum of:
        0.024870027 = weight(_text_:22 in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024870027 = score(doc=1444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1444, 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=1444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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